Home | Comment & Analysis    Monday 1 March 2010

Yes, the U.S. is selling Southern Sudanese ’Down the River’

separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

By Roger Winter

February 28, 2010 — In an article published in the Sudan Tribune of May 27, 2009 I explained the American expression of ‘selling someone down the river’ and pondered rhetorically if that kind of betrayal was what the Obama Administration was doing to Southern Sudanese. I decided that, at the time, it was too soon to come to that conclusion, but there were reasons to be seriously concerned. That is now very ancient history. It has been for some time now very clear that, knowingly or not, selling-out all of Sudan’s marginalized people is exactly what President Obama’s Administration is doing. The Agent of this tragedy is President Obama’s Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration; his Controller is, obviously, President Obama himself.

As far back as last September 29’s Washington Post, journalist Stephanie McCrummen analyzed the charade the Obama Administration was performing regarding Sudan, purporting to be engaged in a serious Administration-wide policy review process because of disagreements with the preceding Administration’s Sudan policy, while all the time Obama’s Special Envoy on Sudan was already creating and actually implementing a entirely new policy on the ground and under the radar. The new official, written policy, once released, seemed to be a good policy; I and many others publicly said so in many fora. However, a written policy is only as good as the quality and faithfulness of its implementation. On neither count should anyone except Khartoum’s infamous National Congress Party be optimistic.

Special Envoy Gration has demonstrated on many occasions that he finds ‘those guys’ in Khartoum ‘so easy to deal with’. His NCP interlocutors have been in their roles in Khartoum for two decades; they know very well how to read American special envoys to Sudan. On the February 24, SE Gration is quoted in the Khartoum press after meetings in the Presidential Palace as saying, speaking of the ‘big men’ in the National Congress Party, “It is wonderful to be able to meet with the people that I have gotten to know as the leadership but also as friends”. In this statement he is praising a corrupt leadership cabal that came to power in Khartoum by coup, overturning an elected government; that provided the opportunity for Osama bin Laden to mature as an international terrorist; that is responsible for the deaths of two-and-a-half million ‘marginalized’ Southern Sudanese and the physical destruction of most of the South, Nuba Mountains, Abyei, Southern Blue Nile; that perpetrated genocide in Darfur with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives; that has largely stolen control of the entire economy of Sudan; that has a 100% perfect record regarding the agreements it signs with others, that is, it never, ever keeps its word; and, finally, which is led by the only sitting head of state that has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for overseeing a program of mass killing of Sudanese people. The number of deaths at Khartoum’s hands is holocaustic.

Americans are beginning to understand the implications of SE Gration’s approach to the NCP. At first, many in the American population who follow Sudan were reluctant to criticize the ‘new’ U.S. Administration. That is changing. In the November 5, 2009 The New Republic, a magazine some have characterized as supporting ‘liberal social and social democratic economic policies’ said “Scott Gration is an embarrassment…Since taking over the job, Gration has gone about ingratiating himself to the Sudanese government—an odd choice given that the government is a genocidal one. He seems interested only in offering Khartoum incentives, even though it has provided him basically nothing in return.’ At the opposite side of the political spectrum the American Spectator on February 15 in an article entitled “Obama’s Dreadful Sudan Policy” said “Nowhere has the gap between Obama’s campaign talk and his administration’s actions been greater than on Sudan…Bashir and his cronies clearly do not see Obama as a credible threat. After Obama’s election, Sudan’s ambassador to the U.N. dismissed his promises of a tough Sudan policy as ‘only election slogans.’ Sudan advocates are slowly coming to the same conclusion”. On February 18 thirty-five organizations interested in Sudan in an open letter to President Obama called on the President to relieve Special Envoy Gration of his duties based on an ‘off-the-record’ meeting he held with expatriate Darfuris that some of the Darfur leaders said intimidated them and in which he seemed to be trying to pit Darfuris against Southern Sudanese (see http://allafrica.com/stories/201002181073.html).

America still has a strong active broad-based and bipartisan constituency on behalf of the ravaged people of both Darfur and South Sudan. That constituency has reluctantly but increasingly moved to a position of public criticism of General Gration’s naïve ‘candy, cookies and gold stars’ approach to Khartoum’s junta. But they are wrong to do so as Gration is just the flak-catcher. The real problem is President Obama. Gration reports to the President. Gration’s erratic pattern of making public statements and later denying he made those very statements, including in on-the-record Senate hearings, has been highly visible. The internal disputes on Sudan policy at senior levels of his Administration guarantee that the President is fully aware of what the Special Envoy is doing. That is clearly a major factor in why Vice-President Biden, Senator John Kerry, Secretary Hillary Clinton, have all now all turned on their own public record on Sudan of years past.

While the radical Islamists of Sudan’s ruling National Congress Party and the radical Islamist rebel leader of the Darfur-based Justice and Equality Movement are now moving toward collaboration, the clamor has now begun to postpone not only the already thrice-postponed national elections scheduled for this coming April but also ‘the Referendum’, the ‘Holy Grail’ for Southern Sudanese, won in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement(CPA) when it was signed on January 9, 2005. It is almost universally expected that, in a free and fair vote, the people of the South will vote overwhelmingly for independence. The CPA, in substantial degree the product of serious American diplomacy, sets the timing of the Referendum as January 2011, just over ten months from now.

Sudan has been at war internally for about 80% of the time since independence from the British on January 1, 1956, including twenty-one years of producing mass death in the South and allied areas such as Abyei, Southern Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains. The two and a half million Sudanese who died were overwhelmingly people of ‘African’ ethnicity and heritage, in Sudanese terms meaning not ‘Arab’. Some northern Sudanese use the term ‘slaves’ for southern Sudanese.

The American phrase ‘selling someone down river’ is thought by many to derive from America’s tragic history of slavery. The concept was that slavery as practiced in the Deep South was often harsher than slavery elsewhere. ‘Uppity’ or otherwise problematic slaves might be punished by being ‘sold down river’.

In The New Republic article cited above, the editors posed and answered a key question; “Is Gration a cynic? A lightweight? We suspect worse: He is a man with an almost utopian theory about international relations.” It is my view that, through his naïve approach to Khartoum, he is essentially selling Southern Sudanese down the river. This time, though, the phrase does not refer to the south-flowing Mississippi, but rather the Nile which flows from Southern Sudan into the very heart of Khartoum in Sudan’s North. If that is where current Administration policy leads, the tragedy that results will necessarily have to be laid at President Obama’s feet and his failure to apply serious diplomacy to the Sudan portfolio. There is precious little time to change our policy course.

Roger winter is former USAID manager and former US State Department special envoy for Sudan assigned to follow Darfur dossier and implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement



The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysis' section are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email it to comment@sudantribune.com

Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information and political affiliations.
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
  • 1 March 2010 04:17, by Time1

    You know Mr Roger winter you and only a few others probably the only few people in Washington who understand the Sudanese problem much broder and clearer. Actually i am not sure if Obama really is serious about his policies here in Africa, he has so far not accomplish anything significant here in Africa in his first term since taking office, but we trust in Obama and believe he will do it, but he needs to keep his eyes ont he ball (the situation), he seems to be completely out of touch with the situation on the ground as everyday pass, considering he is an African himself and with some connections even here in Sudan. however Gen Gration could be walking a thin line between trying to please NCP and trying to make them cooperate with him, Gration it seems does not know some of the partiers here in Sudan very well but he will soon find out the hard way if he does not stay in check, he policy of giving and taking is good but as long as if does not affect and take away from other parties involved, it will be like taking money from someone and giving it to another leaving the first person broke again, its better you just divide the money equal or you will create another problem by solving another. Marginalise people will continue to work with Rogersa nd many other good Americans who have stood by the marginalised Sudanese true patriotic stand and help achieve their rights and freedom, Obama need to be serious that is all, even if he doe snot talk alot about Sudan as long as he is keeping the situation on check and monitoring developments then that should not be a problem, Obama has to make sure during his term that CPA in completed to the end as agreed upon during bush time untill the interim period end, then the results could give him something to claim success over in Africa. As for the peace in Darfur it has to be handled with care, as the records of peace implementation is know, the record of previous violations is also know, so caution is required while pushing for peace on all sides.

    Obama and his administration should stay focus on the overal objective and mission that will see a peaceful and satisfactory end on all sides in the Sudanese problem.

    repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 05:41, by Dinka Boy

    Roger Winter,

    I agree with you in your intellectual article that you compose on the issue of South Sudan. As was said by our hero Dr John Garang de Mabior that the Khartoum government is deform and that make them not to reform.

    In fact, the current administration of Obama seem deminishing the obvious critical problems of South Sudanese in the brutal NCP management for decades. Certainly, the Bush’s and Bill’s administration would be frankly knowing the problem of South Sudanese and other marginalize tribe in the entitre Sudan than the Obama one.

    As far as I know, USA and many others international communities who cares about the brutal death and suffering of innocents seem reluctant especially for the case of South Sudanese in which they should value and support the decission of South Sudanese in 2011 whereby NCP leaders Bashier will not make its as a just fade away deal, never in their mind; it will be more test to CPA implementers and the south Sudanese themselves because they know money and their allies can do withou option.

    We will thanks Bush and Bill adminstration because they make the world aware about the South problems by welcoming lost boys and many SPLM leaders to narrated their problems against the North/Arab for centuries.

    The US envoy works closely with the khartoum government in most case because that is the dwealing place for him ever since though he seems talking on peace in Sudan.In fact, if we have more people like you then the issue of South Sudanese would be an excellence move in 2010 and in 2011.

    We Southeners don,t trust NCP by all means because they are manipulators and they are against the South Sudanese. Last year, Bashier governments pure lots of guns in the South to many militia and money lovers to destabalized the peaceful South abd to destroy the CPA through ethnics violent and that really cause alot of death in the South;in fact, the world powerful nations must condemned Bashier for that ill impositions.

    Finally, the current adminstration has no much power about the ICC against Bashier because the Khartoum goverment is against the US too. Yes, Bush and Bill make more progress in the South than the current adminstration. God bless you Winter for sharing you views with the world.
    Thanks

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 06:19, by Malakal

      The Europeans in conjunction with Americans are doing the sort of th same things to South Sudanese, even to the entire continent of Africa. Roger Winter you must be a secret intelligent agent who is trying to makes nice under two different standards. If the American where indeed true helpers, how come they did not do so in 21 years of blood-bath mainly in South Sudan. Thanks to the oil and the Bin laden connection with Islamist in the North some are finally waking up. Shame on all of you clowns.

      repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 08:22, by murlescrewed

    Mr Winter is clearly a guy who understands NCP well than any other person in Washington. From the start, Obama administration has been dithering and dealing hands in glove with one of the nastiest regime to ever show up on the African continent. It is just puzzling why they are doing this. One logical thing that would come to mind is that the American administration in untrustworthy. Given choice between getting some shoddy intelligence from former handlers of Osama bin Laden and holding NCP regime accountable, the Americans will ultimately choose intelligence cooperation. We really don’t know the value of that intelligence but Obama has been ’briefed’ that it is more important that his own promises.

    The choice of Gen. Scott Gration to be the special envoy to Sudan was just as puzzling. They guy has no background in Sudan. He only lived in Congo when he was a child and has no had experience dealing with people with bloody hands like the NCP. So for Obama to just appoint this guy as special envoy just sent a wrong message to the Sudanese people. He has already been compromised.

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 19:33, by Time1

      Murle

      I think the last thing the Obama administration wants to get from the Sudanese double agents is terrorism cooperation and information, because they are going to be mislead that is all i can advise them.

      repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 09:16, by Oduck Bol

    I would love to kiss my own ass,but my mouth will not reach it.

    It is very painful thing man.

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 10:55, by Lokorai

      Mr. Winter,

      There is no way at this point to continue belligerency against anyone including Khartoum. That is a path a wise symathizer and activist should follow.

      Gen. Scot is doing a superb job; some of you don’t understand what he is doing right here. His efforts are paying, please don’t live in the past and only out to soil his wonderful efforts.

      Kindly stop stoking fire by using Southern Sudan case to advance cheap politics. Leave Gen. Gration alone, we are tired of your ever combative spirits

      Lokorai

      repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 11:26, by Oracle

    Finally!!! Someone is awake!!!

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 12:01, by Master

      This is a meaningful article written by Evgeny Belenkiy, of RT Channel.
      Published 28 January, 2009, 17:12

      In reply to you Mr. Rogers.

      There may be exceptions: the war in Afghanistan is going to intensify. In Somalia, there will be a fight with the pirates. And then there is Sudan.

      Very little is said these days about this conflict zone with a prospective U.S. military angle.

      However, just a few months ago, when Barack Obama was still busy with his electoral campaign and George Bush, in the spare time from his own campaigning, kept carrying the burdens of power, the signs of attention – articles, documentaries and news reports on Sudan – started appearing in the world media.

      It is strange how there hadn’t been all that much information about the African country before. It is strange how abruptly the flow of information stopped in early December, after it was established that the Ukrainian battle tanks onboard the freighter Faina, captured by the Somali pirates, may have been intended for Sudan.

      In the pre-New Year blast of data and opinions on Sudan, which somehow fizzled out by mid-December, there was a lot of emphasis put on the warrant of arrest, expected to be issued by the International Criminal Court, for the President of Sudan Omar Al-Bashir, who has been in office for the past nineteen years. For the last three years he has been at the helm of a coalition government composed of his supporters in a fair proportion with his former civil war enemies from the South.

      Amazingly, when the warrant came out in January, the world media hardly noticed it at all.

      Read more

      Even if I suggest that the Great Spin Machine stopped for a long Christmas holiday, what was that other mechanism, the Mean Green Machine of the U.S. military, planning or doing about Sudan? The only piece of information available, and pure hearsay at that, is the story that when the mediators proposed, on behalf of the owners of the vessel, to unload the cargo of tanks from the pirate-held ‘Faina,’ the U.S. Navy threatened to sink the vessel.

      The Russian press (Kommersant, 12.12.2008) hinted that the battle tanks on the ‘Faina’ may have been paid for by the U.S. and intended for the use by the militant groups in the South of Sudan which America is allegedly going to turn into something like Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance. That may or may not be true. The fact is, the civil war of the Sudanese South against the Sudanese North ended three years ago on a very pleasant note for the South. It was agreed that in 2011 there will be a referendum which will decide if the South stays with Sudan or becomes an independent nation.

      For the South Sudanese, therefore, there is no direct interest in going to war again. However, they consider themselves ‘cousins’ of the new U.S. president, because Barack Obama’s father belongs to a tribe that used to live in the South of Sudan and moved to Kenya only recently. Maybe that could have become a reason enough for some armed groups in the South of Sudan to accept the role of an arrowhead in a future American operation?

      But what is going to be the target? The long civil war was for the oil wells in South Sudan and the untapped resources of Darfur, an area the size of France covering the western parts of both Sudanese North and partly – South. The oil stays with the South if it secedes from Sudan, so it’s just a matter of a couple of years before the international community can start developing oil deposits to international standards – and receive an additional source of fuel for its needs.

      With Darfur the situation is different. It remains Sudanese and inherits from the South its role of natural opposition to the government of Omar Al-Bashir, simultaneously holding most of the country’s natural resources which are so far at the complete disposal of the central government in Khartoum. But – there is a catch: the resources stay undisturbed by anyone, because there is an ongoing war in Darfur, a war between the Arabs of the North united in a government-sponsored militia, and the Africans of Darfur, and a great many living in refugee camps after their villages have been burned down.

      The war in Darfur is a cruel and violent African conflict, with rape always accompanying murder. It is one of those conflicts that never fail to cause a strong emotional reaction in those who learn the details. Then again, it’s one of those ethnic conflicts about which the international community usually can do next to nothing. Except this time things may turn out to be different, but that war has many faces.

      To Khartoum it is a clash of two ethnic groups which, since 2003 when it started, has killed over 10,000 people. To the U.S. Congress it’s a case of genocide, with 300,000 victims. The UN or any other international organization hasn’t named it genocide so far but the 300,000 figure comes from UN aid workers and NGO members hired for fact finding missions by various UN bodies. The International Criminal Court definitely sees genocide there if it issues an arrest warrant on these grounds for the incumbent president of an independent nation.

      Sudan is the biggest country in Africa, and it is also a place where two worlds meet: the Arab world and the African world. The Arabs populate the North, the Africans (a multitude of tribes and ethnic groups) live in the South – and many Southerners displaced by the civil war live in camps in the North and in Darfur. In Darfur the population is both Arab and African. Historically, it is hard to expect lasting peace between ethnic groups totally different in everything from skin colour to religion and culture, and the history of Sudan confirms that.

      It is also hard to imagine, again from the point of view of history, that a certain mechanism of co-existence would not emerge from the time these ethnic groups have lived side by side. It does exist, for if it didn’t, there would be no end to the civil war, and it would not have ended in such a satisfactory way for the both sides. The South enjoys a wide autonomy and is getting ready for the referendum of 2011, while the North gets an equal share in oil income.

      So, may there be ways to solve the Darfur problem as well? In the UN opinions differ. In the United States and in the International Criminal court they do not. Days after the U.S. election a Democratic think tank, which included many veterans of the Clinton administration, issued a letter of advice to then President-elect Barack Obama in which, in the chapter devoted to foreign policy, the next president was urged to fight genocide in the world by all possible means. There was also a notion in the letter that the U.S. must not neglect the problems of Africa.

      Officials of the Khartoum government routinely call the efforts of the International Criminal court against president Al-Bashir part of an American plot against Sudan. Taking into consideration all the above, it may not be just domestic propaganda. At the very least, it is clear that the arrest warrant issued for the Sudanese president on the grounds of suspected masterminding genocide and ethnic cleansing in his country, can be a perfect pretext for an invasion and ‘regime change.’

      As in Darfur, where the genocide is allegedly happening, there is no such African ethnic force that could become an ally of the U.S. against the government in Khartoum. It is logical for the U.S. to turn to the only strong non-government (and formerly anti-government) force that exists in the country: the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement which represents most of the Southern armed groups that fought in the civil war. They can easily become a ‘Northern Alliance’ or, to be geographically correct, the ‘Southern Alliance’ of Sudan.

      The Southern armies are combat-ready and have experience of a war that lasted over 20 years. They may lack hardware, but that is not a problem for anyone who becomes a U.S. ally. They lack air support too, but that is not a problem either.

      There’s a question I’d like to ask – would they be willing, after a mere three years of peace, to go back to war for U.S. interests? Their own interests are provided by the peace treaty signed with the North and by the very fact of the existence of the coalition government in Khartoum. In addition: does America, or anyone else, have the moral right to drag these people into yet another war when they are just getting the taste of the fruits of peace?

      Maybe just one more: is it possible to try solving the Darfur problem by joint diplomatic and political efforts of the main power centers of the modern world? Could the U.S. – together with Russia, China, India, with UN permission – put enough pressure on Khartoum to find out, once and for all, the real picture of the events in Darfur, and to make the government of Sudan solve the issue?

      Starting wars and changing regimes may be easier than that. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that finishing a war is much harder than starting it.

      Anyway, now it is the end of January and the Great Spin Machine seems to be as indifferent to Sudan as it was in the last week of 2008. Maybe things are changing?

      Maybe the world economic crisis presented America with a choice: no two wars at a time, so is it Afghanistan or Sudan? America certainly answered ‘Afghanistan,’ because its interests there need daily protection, while an operation in Sudan would be more ideologically-based than implemented for the sake of straight national interest.

      Maybe the Obama team means it when it speaks of diplomacy, not war, as the first echelon of foreign policy. Or maybe one day we will hear again about Sudan becoming a military target because of the human rights record of its president. If it happens, the spin will come first. Let’s look out for an avalanche of media information on Sudan – that will be the sign!

      At this point, let me depart and apologize for telling you a story of a future war instead of a past one as promised.

      repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 12:20, by AAMA

    The article is true and valid to a great extent, but it is bias too.
    The American policy towards the south of Sudan problem has been different from the rest of the Sudanese problems (including Nuba Montains and Blue Nile, Darfur ........).

    The American policy when it comes to south Sudan is mainly stirred by NGOs from church organizations and the Jewish lobby and mainly appeared after the NCP coup and for pure political reasons. All the American successive administrations know that the south problem goes back to the 1800s when northern slave traders used to raid southern tribes and enslave their people (by the way, this phenomenon is not confined to Sudan, but the whole continent was suffering the same tragedy of tribes enslaving other tribes). After that, north and south where blocked from each other for a while during the colonial times, but the tragic memories didn’t fade away from southern people minds. After independence, the British united Sudan and automatically the northerners replaced the British administrators in the south, because, at that time there were no enough southerners to do the job. Those northern who went to work in the south were shocked by the amount of inherited hate the south had for them.
    A series efforts in trying to fix the south situation started by the north and in the process, lots and lots of mistakes were committed and the hate of the south to the north continues up to date.

    Now, America and the west know these fact and they understand that the northerners today cannot pay the price of what some of their ancestors did in the south more than 100 years ago. However, they can complain very loudly about Darfur for example as it’s a mistake by a hostile government for them. For example, people who died in the south are much more than those who died in Darfur, but in the south, the world blames both sides (south for the hate that should have been expired and the north for the mistakes done in the process of solving the problem). Off course, the arrival of the NCP changed many things on the ground.

    Regarding Gration, people should know that he was born and raised in Africa in the Congo, he acts as a son of Africa who cares for its people and he understands its complexities. That’s way many in the US who don’t know the reality on the ground in Africa think he is an embarrassment because he is not bias to the main stream NGOs propaganda who promote Arab/Islamophobia and try to find hateful allies with them. Obama is also a son of Africa and is much more open mined towards the world than most of those confined critics who don’t know much about anything in the world beside their own country. Obama was not easy with the NCP on Darfur, but he won’t be harsh to the north (NCP or a newly elected gov.) when it comes to the south, especially if the south separates as the blame is shared by both sides (south for the overwhelming hatred and north for the continuous mistakes).

    Peace.

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 14:55, by mohammed ali

      The problems in Sudan are easing even the tension between the SPLA and the NCP are easing much more than before.Only hate mongers who want us to kill each other to benifet out of our misery are not happy.Only belligerent Roger Winter who was once calling open for an American war against Sudan ,fought by African blood is still dreaming of another war between the south and north.

      We in the north will never fight a war again in the South, unless in self-defence!I am sure that many southerners understands this very well.

      How came when such a man disappeared from the screen peace all over Sudan is becoming REAL HOPE? You want an answer ,please read these articles:

      http://www.nointervention.com/archi...

      and this: http://www.inshuti.org/hoyos.htm

      http://www.allthingspass.com/uploads/pdf-264THE%20WINTER%20OF%20BASHIRS%20DISCONTENT.pdf

      repondre message

  • 1 March 2010 19:46, by Time1

    I just believe let Gen Gration be left to do his job, he knows what he is doing and knows that his ideas has to fall inline with the over objectives of CPA, peace and stability.

    repondre message

    • 1 March 2010 20:06, by Time1

      Mohammed

      Sudan Rice is the currently serving as United States ambassodor to the UN. Every body learns through experiences, she might not have had any experience when she started but am sure now she has learned her lessons.

      However, no body wants war in Sudan right now, both north and south have to fulfill their obligations as required by the CPA and the consitution.

      repondre message

      • 1 March 2010 20:58, by mohammed ali

        TIME,

        Fine,we all want this.The south must have it’s referendum,and choose whatever it wants.We must protect this right!

        Many southerners want unity,and many much more southerners will vote for session.I do accept their decision.

        To be honest with you I donnot support secession.Not because I want to dominate as an Arab or whatever,but because it is not something which is going to be easy.It is not in the best of the interest of Southerners,and northerner, but in a much lesser degree!!But it is going to happen , and Sudan is going to unite again!

        The most important thing ,let us do everything alone.We can!!

        repondre message

        • 1 March 2010 23:24, by thieleling

          Dear Readers,

          Roger Winter is also in bed with genocidal and "holocaustic" regime in South Sudan in the 90s. Mr. Winter was supporting John Garang faction in the war among south sudanese. He personally attended the SPLM Chukudum First Convention. What he said here is hypocritical. “It is wonderful to be able to meet with the people that I have gotten to know as the leadership but also as friends”. Mr. Winter, you are doing what you accused general Gration of doing. You are a committed lobbyist or paid lobbyist of a corrupted, tribalist SPLM in South Sudan. You supported tribalism among south sudanese, let alone the whole sudan. You were a former USAID, and represented the US State Department in both Darfur and South Sudan. But you were simply fueling the divisions in south and in sudan at large.

          Sudan is NOT 51 U.S state. You need to know that! I heard people bragging about you being a member of the SPLM. You are NOT a south sudanese either. We understand you don’t want peace to come to African Continent, and thus your alterior motive is very clear. But you need to understand that your concerns are NOT for the marginalized sudanese, but your own selfish-interests that Only benefits yourself. Your interests in sudan is purely economics or the resources of the region. You are simply representing the Multinational corporations, the corporate America. Please enjoy your money quietly without publicly broadcasting your obvious bias toward one group or the others. Mr. Gration is a pragmatic man, and therefore doing his job diligently. Just continue your non-objective lobby for the corrupted leadership of SPLM while getting paid by the same corrupted leadership.

          Otherwise, I agree with you on one thing that Obama is responsible for the current U.S policy toward Sudan, and Not Mr. Gration. There are also high intelelctuals in his Administration as you pointed out: Vice-president Joe Biden, John Kerry and of course Hillary Clinton. They are intelligent and capable lawyers. The U.S Never carried about the Marginalized sudanese during the Cold-war, and will continue NOT to carry about them. There is nothing Roger Winter would do about that other than practicing hypocritical stance supporting one group against others in south sudan, Darfur or Sudan in general. Your interest is a regime change in Sudan. So you want to see a puppet regime that gives it resources to U.S instead to China. All the same.

          But remember!! The CPA is not Bible or Koran. It was the document that gives SPLM & NCP power to govern during the interim period. It was NOT agreed to by the whole masses of sudan through consensus. It was imposed through negotiation between the two parties. Both SPLM & NCP are genocidal. Both came to power through undemocratic means. There was military stalemate in the country, and that was why they agreed to chair power through dictatorship. No one wins the war!!

          repondre message

  • 2 March 2010 05:34, by Angelo Achuil

    I think Obama & Gration had to be more careful. Khartoum had more experience in mass killing, manipulation, and signing brilliant documents (agreements) that they never intend to follow more than they.

    repondre message

    • 2 March 2010 17:49, by mohammed ali

      Angeilo,

      More than the Americans.WAW, you are crediting Khartoum!

      repondre message

Comment on this article


 
 

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.


Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis


Bashir rests assured laden-burden on the Sudanese people’s shoulders 2014-07-14 06:09:16 By Mahmoud A. Suleiman July 13, 2014 - Omer al-Bashir believes that his continuing in power better protects him from tracking and prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). He clings (...)

Lack of equity: A cause of many conflicts in Africa 2014-07-14 06:05:33 By Francis Ayul Yuar Nyok July 13, 2014 - It should be kept in mind that Africa crisis is not unique, more or less all the countries of the Sub-Sarah Africa are plague with acute poverty and in (...)

Hon. Both Diu’s legacy hijacked 2014-07-14 06:02:06 By Peter Gai Manyuon July 13, 2014 - The idea of “Federalism” in South Sudan does not emanate from the SPLM-in Opposition nor does it stem from Equatorians (as claimed)but it was first proposed (...)


MORE








Latest Press Releases


South Sudan: Independence Day marred by ongoing war crimes and looming famine 2014-07-09 01:39:56 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE 8 July 2014 South Sudan: Independence Day marred by ongoing war crimes and looming famine · Both sides to the conflict committing war crimes and crimes (...)

UN urged to probe alleged cover-ups and manipulations by its mission in Darfur 2014-06-26 05:40:52 Strengthen Peacekeeping Mission’s Rights Reporting, Civilian Protection (New York, June 25, 2014) – The United Nations secretary-general should investigate alleged cover-ups and manipulation of (...)

International community must act to end Sudan’s “unprecedented and intense” bombing of civilians 2014-06-11 09:58:56 10 June 2014 All Members of the African Union Peace and Security Council Addis Ababa Re: Call to end targeting of civilians in Sudan’s conflict areas Your Excellencies, As a coalition of civil (...)


MORE

Copyright © 2003-2014 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.