Ferry in Wad Alhdad
Ferry in Wad Alhadad, Blue Nile
fredag 14 september 2007
Varför är Sudan med listan för koncentrationsländer?
Man bli förvånad över att Sudan blev ett koncentrationsland för svensk bistånd. I och för sig är det bra för bägge länderna men jag undrar vad grunder man valet på? Sudan har inte varit en mottagare av svenskt bistånd så som länder som Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania och de andra i listan. Om det är på grund av Darfur som Sverige vill bli engagerad i Sudan så räcker inte det till ett skäll att inkluderar Sudan i denna lista.
fredag 1 juni 2007
Darfur: R2P, 2P or not 2P
USA vill införa sanktioner mot Sudan på grund av Darfur krisen. Men frågan är: Är det ett bättre metod att sätta press på Sudan, som betarkdes som huvudansvarig för skyddandet av befolkingen i Darfur enligt R2P ( the right to protect)? Är sanktionerna effektiva för attt hindra ett folkmord? Har vi inte lärt oss från Irak att sanktionerna slå hård mot befolkingen än de ansvariga för övergripandet och andra folkrättsbrytare?
Den humanitära situationen kommer säkert att bli ännu sämre och vi kommer att se mer och mer av avskräckande bilder av undernärda barn och svaltande mäniskör i Darfur just på grund av sanktionerna. Vad som behövs är egentligen en vilja från omvärlden att ingripa militärt för humanitärt sysfte för att rädda barnen och kvinnorna för den här desparata situationen.
R2P handlar egentligen om att ömvärlden vill inte ta sitt ansvar och skydda befolkningen i nöd. Vi har siutationer just idag i Afrika där R2P approachen inte fungerar alls som till example Somalia där en centarl regering saknas. Afarikas konflikter liknar inte varandra och därför kommer R2P inte att fungerar.
Den humanitära situationen kommer säkert att bli ännu sämre och vi kommer att se mer och mer av avskräckande bilder av undernärda barn och svaltande mäniskör i Darfur just på grund av sanktionerna. Vad som behövs är egentligen en vilja från omvärlden att ingripa militärt för humanitärt sysfte för att rädda barnen och kvinnorna för den här desparata situationen.
R2P handlar egentligen om att ömvärlden vill inte ta sitt ansvar och skydda befolkningen i nöd. Vi har siutationer just idag i Afrika där R2P approachen inte fungerar alls som till example Somalia där en centarl regering saknas. Afarikas konflikter liknar inte varandra och därför kommer R2P inte att fungerar.
lördag 14 april 2007
Let Darfurians die and let us make money
There were several recent diplomatic attempts to end the crisis in Darfur, but does the international community really care about the Darfurians? High profile leaders among them Mbeki of South Africa, Negroponte; deputy state secretary of USA, Gunillea Carlsson; Minister of International Cooperation and Development of Sweden, Zhai Jun Assistant Foreign Minister of China, visited Sudan last week and they had only one agenda: To put pressure on Sudan to accept a UN troops in Darfur. If Sudan refused to accept, they will use the stick, sanctions will be imposed against certain Sudanese officials, companies with business in Sudan and their financial transitions, freezing of bank accounts and launching of an “economical war” against Sudan and its people including Darfur. If there will be a future economic war it will be in Sudan where the European Union, United States of America and China will be the major actors. Even if the sanctions include enforcing a no-fly zone and weapons embargo, this will not be enough to protect the poor Darfurians from genocide since other groups in the region are having freed hands to create havoc and terror in this part of Africa. The Guardian called the imitative of Blair for a no-fly zone as controversial (The Guardian 28 march 2007).
Since the start of the crisis in February 2003 and Darfur became an issue of academia on what to do if it classified as genocide and what to do if it was not. Should the International community react to the crisis under chapter 7 mandate or not since the conflict does not involve two countries but an internal issue for Sudan and the Sudanese? At least hundred official reports were produced about the crisis; the last one was refuted at the International Human right commission in the Hag. Visiting Darfur became a merit to be added to curriculum vitae, as one Sudanese official said. As the time goes hundred thousands Darfurian lost their lives and those who survived took refuge around bigger towns in Darfur region. Others decided to move into Chad to seek protection. While the international community (EU, UN and USA) see no any other alternative to the end of the crisis except sanctions and then invasion as the case of Iraq and later Iran. Africans and their Union is regarded as poor as the continents itself to accomplish the mission. Some of the European countries do believe that Sudan is not in need of humanitarian assistance and should take care of all refugees needs in Darfur. The idea is, as Sudan will put financial resources in humanitarian assistance this mean will compete with the financial resources to army and its militias.
Efforts should be devoted to convince those who refused Abuja to join others, instead of encouraging the so called rebels to unite against the government of Sudan without agenda other than killing more people in an area well known for ethnic conflicts and tensions. The Sudanese have to learn from the “Toyota war” or the Chadian-Libyan war during the 1980s which have been fought inside Darfur and one of the reasons of the crisis of today. If the SPLA did it earlier and signed an agreement with the government and put an end to the bloody war in the south, what are the hinders for the rebels of Darfur to join their Darfurians brothers who became advisors and vice presidents for Omar Al-Bashir. Hopefully this will put an end to loss of lives in Darfur. This is definitely not the ultimate and desired solution, put it will stop more killings in Darfur.
USA and UK want by any means to access the resources of the African giant country for future exploitation. The Americans were the first to explore oil in Sudan at early seventies. The oil reserve in Sudan was regarded as part of the strategic reserve of oil to USA in future and left with drilling and exploitation. The investment of the Chinese in this sector is a source of worry for the American. That is why they would like to impose sanctions against the investors in Sudan on the cost of the Drafurians. Or in other word let the Darfurians die and let us make money. I don’t think that Sudan will refuse an international troops in Darfur on condition that it excludes American and Britons and their allies like Australia, Spain and alike. But since the issue of protecting Darfurian is at the bottom of the list of the international community, none of the diplomats will try to seek new ways and compromise other than International troops. Even without revealing the composition of those troops.
Since the start of the crisis in February 2003 and Darfur became an issue of academia on what to do if it classified as genocide and what to do if it was not. Should the International community react to the crisis under chapter 7 mandate or not since the conflict does not involve two countries but an internal issue for Sudan and the Sudanese? At least hundred official reports were produced about the crisis; the last one was refuted at the International Human right commission in the Hag. Visiting Darfur became a merit to be added to curriculum vitae, as one Sudanese official said. As the time goes hundred thousands Darfurian lost their lives and those who survived took refuge around bigger towns in Darfur region. Others decided to move into Chad to seek protection. While the international community (EU, UN and USA) see no any other alternative to the end of the crisis except sanctions and then invasion as the case of Iraq and later Iran. Africans and their Union is regarded as poor as the continents itself to accomplish the mission. Some of the European countries do believe that Sudan is not in need of humanitarian assistance and should take care of all refugees needs in Darfur. The idea is, as Sudan will put financial resources in humanitarian assistance this mean will compete with the financial resources to army and its militias.
Efforts should be devoted to convince those who refused Abuja to join others, instead of encouraging the so called rebels to unite against the government of Sudan without agenda other than killing more people in an area well known for ethnic conflicts and tensions. The Sudanese have to learn from the “Toyota war” or the Chadian-Libyan war during the 1980s which have been fought inside Darfur and one of the reasons of the crisis of today. If the SPLA did it earlier and signed an agreement with the government and put an end to the bloody war in the south, what are the hinders for the rebels of Darfur to join their Darfurians brothers who became advisors and vice presidents for Omar Al-Bashir. Hopefully this will put an end to loss of lives in Darfur. This is definitely not the ultimate and desired solution, put it will stop more killings in Darfur.
USA and UK want by any means to access the resources of the African giant country for future exploitation. The Americans were the first to explore oil in Sudan at early seventies. The oil reserve in Sudan was regarded as part of the strategic reserve of oil to USA in future and left with drilling and exploitation. The investment of the Chinese in this sector is a source of worry for the American. That is why they would like to impose sanctions against the investors in Sudan on the cost of the Drafurians. Or in other word let the Darfurians die and let us make money. I don’t think that Sudan will refuse an international troops in Darfur on condition that it excludes American and Britons and their allies like Australia, Spain and alike. But since the issue of protecting Darfurian is at the bottom of the list of the international community, none of the diplomats will try to seek new ways and compromise other than International troops. Even without revealing the composition of those troops.
fredag 6 april 2007
The 6th of April, Mathematical Equation in Sudan Politics
The 6th of april is a day in the history of Sudan. 22 years have passed since the popular Intifada put an an end to a dictator and pave the way for a democratic Sudan. General Aboud was in power for 6 years, Numairi for 16 years, Bashir for 17 years now ( and still 9 years to come). It is a mathematical equation in Sudan Politics (6, 16, 26, 36.
Happy Easter too,,,
Happy Easter too,,,
måndag 19 mars 2007
Between Iraq and Darfur
Four years have passed since the begning of the illigiamte invasion of the yankees to Iraq. What is the reslut:
1) 59268 civilans have died by the millitary invasion of Irag (acording to Iraq Body count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). The real fingure from diffetert sources goes upp to 300000 civilans.
2) 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four.
3) A civil war among the Iraqis based on religous and ethnic grounds and total chaos in the the country
4) A wide scale of viloations of human rights that puts the wetern values of democarcy at a chalange (Abugraib and Guantanmo are only few reported examples)
5) Iraq became among the most underdeveloped conuries according to all parameters of human development measures and indexis.
6) A spread corruption in the country while the american companies became richer and richer.
7) Thrity percet of the Iraqi poulation have lost a family member since the invation or have some one who enfroced to leave the county and seek asylum.
8) Rape of women, girls and kids became a daily scen in Irak. Most of the rape cases were comitted by the American Army.
9) The argument for the invation was from the begning destruction of Mass weopns that Iraq was calimed to posses. After the invation and during four years nothing has been found.
10) The sanction before the war have let to increased child mortality by 100 in 1000. The BBC reports: This puts Iraq, once a highly prosperous country with and advanced health system, on a par with some of the poorest developing countries when it comes to infant mortality (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/763824.stm)
11) The Iraqis are more pessimists about peace and democracy and the majorty of them would like to see the invaders leaving thier country according to study commissioned by BBS and ABC news.
The list can be longer and longer. Let us take Darfur when the Americans invade the region. But here is the recipt anyway.
1) 59268 civilans have died by the millitary invasion of Irag (acording to Iraq Body count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). The real fingure from diffetert sources goes upp to 300000 civilans.
2) 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four.
3) A civil war among the Iraqis based on religous and ethnic grounds and total chaos in the the country
4) A wide scale of viloations of human rights that puts the wetern values of democarcy at a chalange (Abugraib and Guantanmo are only few reported examples)
5) Iraq became among the most underdeveloped conuries according to all parameters of human development measures and indexis.
6) A spread corruption in the country while the american companies became richer and richer.
7) Thrity percet of the Iraqi poulation have lost a family member since the invation or have some one who enfroced to leave the county and seek asylum.
8) Rape of women, girls and kids became a daily scen in Irak. Most of the rape cases were comitted by the American Army.
9) The argument for the invation was from the begning destruction of Mass weopns that Iraq was calimed to posses. After the invation and during four years nothing has been found.
10) The sanction before the war have let to increased child mortality by 100 in 1000. The BBC reports: This puts Iraq, once a highly prosperous country with and advanced health system, on a par with some of the poorest developing countries when it comes to infant mortality (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/763824.stm)
11) The Iraqis are more pessimists about peace and democracy and the majorty of them would like to see the invaders leaving thier country according to study commissioned by BBS and ABC news.
The list can be longer and longer. Let us take Darfur when the Americans invade the region. But here is the recipt anyway.
söndag 4 mars 2007
The concept of New Sudan
Summary
The article is written as response to Dr. Kursany’s article about the concept of New Sudan. I will argue that the use of the fiscal policy to compare the Sudan of the 60s with that of the 90 is not enough if not suitable. The article discuss also the development of the concept of the New Sudan. Although the concept is very new in the Sudanese politics but its development can be traced back through the last fifteen years. The emergence of the New Forces and the new generations are the main driving forces for a New Sudan.
As Kursany said: The post independence era has been characterised by severe struggle between its social forces and the political organs. Of course its the outcome and the results of this struggle which has been ignored or neglected and seldom debated by the Sudanese intellectuals. Yet, the outcome is not a sheer sectarian or either intellectual. The result is a shift in power, loss of control over the prime mover that drive the forces of struggle towards the reality of the last fifteen years and on. The genesis of the idea of New Sudan can be traced through the history of the struggle mentioned above. And the delivery of the “New Sudan” is still at its earlier stages of labor. A question to be asked here why a New Sudan? What has happened with the old one? to answer those questions I will elaborate on some concepts that entered the dictionary of the Sudanese politics and as an introduction to my argument for a New Sudan.
Immediately after the Intifada two new concept had been introduced in the political rhetoric language of the Sudanese politicians, namely the “sadana or sadanh” and the “New Forces”. The former refers to those who were participated in or supported the political apparatus of May regime. The later is controversial and defined according to where one stands from the now forces. Before the elections the sectarian political parties regarded the New Forces as the graduates of the universities and other high schools. To accommodate the New Forces in the political organ, mainly the parliament, the number of seats for the graduates has been increased. The results after the elections showed that both the SCP and the sectarian parties has nothing in the New Forces. Turabi and his followers won the first round. After the series of strikes which were arranged by the trade unions, Sadig and his government got the notion that the New Forces are in fact the trade Unions. In the left, the SCP saw the New Forces as part of the class struggle, but instead of speaking of classes and mainly the proletariat strive to control the power and rule - classes has been reduced to categories. For the SCP the New Forces are the workers’ trade unions, students, farmers and women. This kind of categorization has been also used earlier by the Sudanese Socialist Union (SSU) -the single political party that functioned as the primary political apparatus of the May regime - under the name “al-tanzimat al-fi’awia”. Those include, The Sudanese youth union, Sudanese women’s union, the alliance of workers and farmers, intellectuals, national capitalists and soldiers. The main idea behind the introduction of the model of “al-tanzimat al-fi’awia” is to absorb and keep under control the power of the New Forces at least for a time. Several attempts has been tried to introduce the agenda of the SSU through this kind of categorization in the universities, schools, clubs and governmental institutions.
If one put himself in the situation of the political parties one will realise that in fact it is very difficult to identify those New Forces. The programmes and the agenda of the political parties has failed to attract the new generations. In addition to this, and the most important is that party politics seemed unable to solve problems of economic development and the war in the south.
With the same political figures that proved to be unable to tackle the chronic problems of the Sudan sine the post-independence up to date, the call for a New Sudan is justified. Those who call for a New Sudan are those who has been disappointed in the political parties and tired from showy politics. Thus the use of term by the Umma, DUP and SCP is only as a hollow slogan that may bring them to the chair of rule and back to the old games of rat and cat. Using the term just keep them hanging on.
Strange enough, the political movement in the southern part of the Sudan was not regarded as part of the New Forces by any definition. As always southerners were regarded as backwarded, uncivilised, underdeveloped, uneducated, mutineers and all the worst. Nothing “new” can come from the South. At first the SPLM called for secession of the south as a solution for the problem of the South. But after 1986 and with the take over of the extreme right over the rule in Khartoum the SPLM appealed for the Sudanese that the problem is not the problem of the south but that of the center and the whole Sudan. It is a problem of injustices, ignorance and oppression practiced by the center. And for the SPLM, all kind of political systems, ideologies and agendas that existed in the center since the begging of this century belongs to the old Sudan. This of course include the alliance of today, mainly the Umma, SCP and DUP. The main task for the southern political movement has been transformed radically by the SPLM from a movement being driven by the cause and consequences of the mutiny of 1955 on a regional basis to a revolutionary and nationalistic movement seeking solution not only for the south but the whole country for New Sudan. For the SPLM the New Sudan “is a concept strives to establish a new cultural order in the country. It takes as point of departure the notion that human beings, in any given society, have equal rights and obligations regardless of color, etc. The establishment of the new cultural order demands of necessity or radical restructuring of state power to establish genuine democracy and to follow the path of development that will lead to far-reaching social changes” (Bulletin issued by SPLM on February 1989).
Still Sudan is governed by the same faces since its independence without success or positive political or socio-economic development. And still the same faces want to rule further without any right. Political leaders are changing only positions and political party names. Defectors are mixed with the Sadanah, communist with Islamists and democracy activists with dictators. The role of the state is undermined, not because of the forces of globalization but because of lack of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Sudan entered in a viscous circle of showy democracy and unavoidable military hegemony. A conflict in the country harvested more than one million lives and destroyed the natural and human resources of the country. This is only few of the features of the old Sudan that are challenging for the New Forces for their strive for a real political change and a New Sudan. With this background about the need for a New Sudan I will argue further that the use of the fiscal policy (in this case the exchange rate of the national currency and the foreign reserves of the country) as basis to compare the old Sudan and New Sudan is not enough if not unsuitable measure for a number of reasons which I will mention below. I will not discuss the model of the New Sudan of this government because enough has been written about how much the country is underdeveloped and bad governed under its rule.
If we use the exchange rate as an argument to how a political system is good or bad and thus to conclude that the Old Sudan is better than the New then the argument should continue as follows: The colonial government before the independence is better than the first democratic regime, Aboud era is better than the second democratic period, The 25th of May regime is better than the third democratic rule and This government is better than the last democratic era. But I think its not as simple as this. The economic crisis of the country escalated at the end of the 1970s as any developing country in Africa. The crisis are in fact a result of the development path chosen since independence. After the 1970 we observed a decline of the industrial output, a deterioration of overall growth performance and productivity, low prices of agricultural commodities, a decreasing saving capacity and declining investments rates, low wages, increased imports with high prices etc.. With the introduction of the structural adjustment programmes governments were advised, among others, to devaluate their currencies to the real values. As a result the exchange rates of the national currency increased by more that 10000 folds since the independence. At one hand this can be attributed to the function of the global market and at the other to inappropriate economic policies over a long time administered by the country’s native politicians which the world bank (1990) better described as a “constancy of policy failure in Sudan”. Parallel to this escalating economic crisis the political crisis started to gain momentum even before the 1970 and continued up to date.
The consequences of this economic and political policy of the old Sudan is an increasing poverty , structurally malformed economical system, chronic civil war and social unrest. All this necessitate a radical change of the political system and the economic policies that persisted sine the independence . Thus the high exchange rates of today do not imply the old Sudan is better and at the same time the Sudan of today is not the New Sudan that the majority are dreaming about.
There is a fundamental difference, I think, between the model of the New Sudan promised by the NDA in general and that of the SPLM and SAF in specific. Some of the NDA members are fundamental constituents of the old Sudan political system and have already used their cards. This is what create a sort of skepticism and suspicious around the New Sudan concept. And that is why the leaders of the NDA do not want to go further with the concept of New Sudan other than a secular state. The issue of secularism is only a hollow slogan and touches only the separation of the state from religion but never how to go about this separation. Secularism is the carrot for the horse to keep the struggle against Fundamentalism. As far as I know the SPLM and SAF have a clear ideas on the concept of the New Sudan. They want to have a Sudan that can accommodate all the diversity of the country; a real democracy where all people have the rights to chose how they want to be ruled and who showed rule; They want to have justice ,freedom, equality and rule of law; They want to develop the country socially and economically; they want to put an end to the South-North conflict; they want to keep the country united and powerful. Time-out for old Sudan politics.
Abu McNimmir
(Publihsed in May 1998)
The article is written as response to Dr. Kursany’s article about the concept of New Sudan. I will argue that the use of the fiscal policy to compare the Sudan of the 60s with that of the 90 is not enough if not suitable. The article discuss also the development of the concept of the New Sudan. Although the concept is very new in the Sudanese politics but its development can be traced back through the last fifteen years. The emergence of the New Forces and the new generations are the main driving forces for a New Sudan.
As Kursany said: The post independence era has been characterised by severe struggle between its social forces and the political organs. Of course its the outcome and the results of this struggle which has been ignored or neglected and seldom debated by the Sudanese intellectuals. Yet, the outcome is not a sheer sectarian or either intellectual. The result is a shift in power, loss of control over the prime mover that drive the forces of struggle towards the reality of the last fifteen years and on. The genesis of the idea of New Sudan can be traced through the history of the struggle mentioned above. And the delivery of the “New Sudan” is still at its earlier stages of labor. A question to be asked here why a New Sudan? What has happened with the old one? to answer those questions I will elaborate on some concepts that entered the dictionary of the Sudanese politics and as an introduction to my argument for a New Sudan.
Immediately after the Intifada two new concept had been introduced in the political rhetoric language of the Sudanese politicians, namely the “sadana or sadanh” and the “New Forces”. The former refers to those who were participated in or supported the political apparatus of May regime. The later is controversial and defined according to where one stands from the now forces. Before the elections the sectarian political parties regarded the New Forces as the graduates of the universities and other high schools. To accommodate the New Forces in the political organ, mainly the parliament, the number of seats for the graduates has been increased. The results after the elections showed that both the SCP and the sectarian parties has nothing in the New Forces. Turabi and his followers won the first round. After the series of strikes which were arranged by the trade unions, Sadig and his government got the notion that the New Forces are in fact the trade Unions. In the left, the SCP saw the New Forces as part of the class struggle, but instead of speaking of classes and mainly the proletariat strive to control the power and rule - classes has been reduced to categories. For the SCP the New Forces are the workers’ trade unions, students, farmers and women. This kind of categorization has been also used earlier by the Sudanese Socialist Union (SSU) -the single political party that functioned as the primary political apparatus of the May regime - under the name “al-tanzimat al-fi’awia”. Those include, The Sudanese youth union, Sudanese women’s union, the alliance of workers and farmers, intellectuals, national capitalists and soldiers. The main idea behind the introduction of the model of “al-tanzimat al-fi’awia” is to absorb and keep under control the power of the New Forces at least for a time. Several attempts has been tried to introduce the agenda of the SSU through this kind of categorization in the universities, schools, clubs and governmental institutions.
If one put himself in the situation of the political parties one will realise that in fact it is very difficult to identify those New Forces. The programmes and the agenda of the political parties has failed to attract the new generations. In addition to this, and the most important is that party politics seemed unable to solve problems of economic development and the war in the south.
With the same political figures that proved to be unable to tackle the chronic problems of the Sudan sine the post-independence up to date, the call for a New Sudan is justified. Those who call for a New Sudan are those who has been disappointed in the political parties and tired from showy politics. Thus the use of term by the Umma, DUP and SCP is only as a hollow slogan that may bring them to the chair of rule and back to the old games of rat and cat. Using the term just keep them hanging on.
Strange enough, the political movement in the southern part of the Sudan was not regarded as part of the New Forces by any definition. As always southerners were regarded as backwarded, uncivilised, underdeveloped, uneducated, mutineers and all the worst. Nothing “new” can come from the South. At first the SPLM called for secession of the south as a solution for the problem of the South. But after 1986 and with the take over of the extreme right over the rule in Khartoum the SPLM appealed for the Sudanese that the problem is not the problem of the south but that of the center and the whole Sudan. It is a problem of injustices, ignorance and oppression practiced by the center. And for the SPLM, all kind of political systems, ideologies and agendas that existed in the center since the begging of this century belongs to the old Sudan. This of course include the alliance of today, mainly the Umma, SCP and DUP. The main task for the southern political movement has been transformed radically by the SPLM from a movement being driven by the cause and consequences of the mutiny of 1955 on a regional basis to a revolutionary and nationalistic movement seeking solution not only for the south but the whole country for New Sudan. For the SPLM the New Sudan “is a concept strives to establish a new cultural order in the country. It takes as point of departure the notion that human beings, in any given society, have equal rights and obligations regardless of color, etc. The establishment of the new cultural order demands of necessity or radical restructuring of state power to establish genuine democracy and to follow the path of development that will lead to far-reaching social changes” (Bulletin issued by SPLM on February 1989).
Still Sudan is governed by the same faces since its independence without success or positive political or socio-economic development. And still the same faces want to rule further without any right. Political leaders are changing only positions and political party names. Defectors are mixed with the Sadanah, communist with Islamists and democracy activists with dictators. The role of the state is undermined, not because of the forces of globalization but because of lack of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Sudan entered in a viscous circle of showy democracy and unavoidable military hegemony. A conflict in the country harvested more than one million lives and destroyed the natural and human resources of the country. This is only few of the features of the old Sudan that are challenging for the New Forces for their strive for a real political change and a New Sudan. With this background about the need for a New Sudan I will argue further that the use of the fiscal policy (in this case the exchange rate of the national currency and the foreign reserves of the country) as basis to compare the old Sudan and New Sudan is not enough if not unsuitable measure for a number of reasons which I will mention below. I will not discuss the model of the New Sudan of this government because enough has been written about how much the country is underdeveloped and bad governed under its rule.
If we use the exchange rate as an argument to how a political system is good or bad and thus to conclude that the Old Sudan is better than the New then the argument should continue as follows: The colonial government before the independence is better than the first democratic regime, Aboud era is better than the second democratic period, The 25th of May regime is better than the third democratic rule and This government is better than the last democratic era. But I think its not as simple as this. The economic crisis of the country escalated at the end of the 1970s as any developing country in Africa. The crisis are in fact a result of the development path chosen since independence. After the 1970 we observed a decline of the industrial output, a deterioration of overall growth performance and productivity, low prices of agricultural commodities, a decreasing saving capacity and declining investments rates, low wages, increased imports with high prices etc.. With the introduction of the structural adjustment programmes governments were advised, among others, to devaluate their currencies to the real values. As a result the exchange rates of the national currency increased by more that 10000 folds since the independence. At one hand this can be attributed to the function of the global market and at the other to inappropriate economic policies over a long time administered by the country’s native politicians which the world bank (1990) better described as a “constancy of policy failure in Sudan”. Parallel to this escalating economic crisis the political crisis started to gain momentum even before the 1970 and continued up to date.
The consequences of this economic and political policy of the old Sudan is an increasing poverty , structurally malformed economical system, chronic civil war and social unrest. All this necessitate a radical change of the political system and the economic policies that persisted sine the independence . Thus the high exchange rates of today do not imply the old Sudan is better and at the same time the Sudan of today is not the New Sudan that the majority are dreaming about.
There is a fundamental difference, I think, between the model of the New Sudan promised by the NDA in general and that of the SPLM and SAF in specific. Some of the NDA members are fundamental constituents of the old Sudan political system and have already used their cards. This is what create a sort of skepticism and suspicious around the New Sudan concept. And that is why the leaders of the NDA do not want to go further with the concept of New Sudan other than a secular state. The issue of secularism is only a hollow slogan and touches only the separation of the state from religion but never how to go about this separation. Secularism is the carrot for the horse to keep the struggle against Fundamentalism. As far as I know the SPLM and SAF have a clear ideas on the concept of the New Sudan. They want to have a Sudan that can accommodate all the diversity of the country; a real democracy where all people have the rights to chose how they want to be ruled and who showed rule; They want to have justice ,freedom, equality and rule of law; They want to develop the country socially and economically; they want to put an end to the South-North conflict; they want to keep the country united and powerful. Time-out for old Sudan politics.
Abu McNimmir
(Publihsed in May 1998)
fredag 2 mars 2007
International Criminal Court on Sudan: Not the right move on Darfur
On a bolgg Anne Bartlett, the Director of the Darfur Centre for Human Rights and Development, wrote an article on 18 Feb. 2007 titled Darfur, the Genocide Glitterati
Your article was en eyebrow-raiser. I just keep say hmm, hmm while reading the lines. Let us start with the positive side of it. We both agree that there is a need for an internal organic solution and not an “outsider” solution to this conflict. That is why I regarded the move from ICC and CG as outsiders move that assumed to lead more complications of the problem. At least this is not the right time for it. An integral part to conflict resolution is reconciliation and confidence building. This is what we need at this stage using indigenous mechanisms to conflict resolutions and the traditions existing in Darfur in this matter. Definitely the one who took the decision at the ICC is not aware of the nature of conflict there or the traditions of conflict settlement.
The second positive point in your article is that some how people in the west starts to know that this conflict can not be simplified as an Arabs/Africans or Abala/Bagara against farmers or a like. As you noticed the conflict is bigger than the area of Darfur itself. It took quiet along time for us to explaining for the people in the West the nature of this conflict. Understanding the nature and the underling cause of the conflict will possibly provide ways and alternatives for a sustainable solution. We agree that the conflict in Darfur is political and not racial. The western models of conflict resolutions will therefore will hardly work here with quick fix, scheduled meetings, deadlines and agreements. Therefore the people of Darfur are not in need to master the western art of conflict resolution because its alien to their nature in dealing with conflicts. There are not either in need of scholarships. They already have Ph .D. holders and Professors in this field at least I can count a dusin for you who are part of the conflict in Darfur, from the government side or those who call themselves rebels. Historically the Fur were among the first people in Sudan to know what scholarships mean and what value education has.
We are in need of Advocacy work. But what kind of Advocacy is needed? I’m totally against any advocacy that lacks facts and only add more fuel to fire. We had enough of that during the bloody conflict in the South. The world has changed with quick access to facts and no space for reconstructed films on fabricated human rights abuses like so called slavery. We can design advocacy campaigns where we demand both sides to respect that right of any Sudanese anywhere built on facts. We are in need of Peace Advocacy because we have suffered allot from War Advocacy.
Darfur became a laboratory for theories in genocide that up to now never yield a return to the people in Darfur in terms of peace and stability. I can understand your worries that none of the participants on those panels has his or her origins in Darfur. There is thousands and thousand of people who are now making a living on the suffrage of People of Darfur.
The Sudanese government, long time ago, understood that their economy is under attack. What was the result of that? Sudan has simply turned its face to China and other countries in the far east of Asia for investments in almost every sector. Today the European union desperately like to find ways and possibilities for reaching the African Markets, including Sudan, after Chinas Africans markets hijack. Yes we know that we have human parasitism in our economy but you can’t preach for punishment of all the Sudanese with sanctions and other measures the crimple the growth of development of Sudan, today Africa’s fastest growing economy. In politically change in Sudan is the responsibility of all the Sudanese at first place.
What kind of democratic process building you speak about? Both the government and the rebels know nothing about democracy and democratic process. Democracy never came up at any talks or agreements including the so-called CPA. I can only see one post of expenditure in which money collected abroad will be used and that is more arms to fuel the crisis. The money will go for buying Landcruzers mounted with doshkas, K5 and klashnikovs. The result to today is that a spill over of the conflict in Chad and Central Africa. The struggle in Sudan has always been led by farmers, workers, students, teachers and farmers. And they know who they can finance their cause from their on financial resources. So please keep hands off! In other words that is an explanation what you refer to citing a voice from Darfur “the people of Darfur have to help themselves out of this crisis, because no-one else will”
I expected more logic from a director of the centre for Darfur,,
Abu McNimmir
Your article was en eyebrow-raiser. I just keep say hmm, hmm while reading the lines. Let us start with the positive side of it. We both agree that there is a need for an internal organic solution and not an “outsider” solution to this conflict. That is why I regarded the move from ICC and CG as outsiders move that assumed to lead more complications of the problem. At least this is not the right time for it. An integral part to conflict resolution is reconciliation and confidence building. This is what we need at this stage using indigenous mechanisms to conflict resolutions and the traditions existing in Darfur in this matter. Definitely the one who took the decision at the ICC is not aware of the nature of conflict there or the traditions of conflict settlement.
The second positive point in your article is that some how people in the west starts to know that this conflict can not be simplified as an Arabs/Africans or Abala/Bagara against farmers or a like. As you noticed the conflict is bigger than the area of Darfur itself. It took quiet along time for us to explaining for the people in the West the nature of this conflict. Understanding the nature and the underling cause of the conflict will possibly provide ways and alternatives for a sustainable solution. We agree that the conflict in Darfur is political and not racial. The western models of conflict resolutions will therefore will hardly work here with quick fix, scheduled meetings, deadlines and agreements. Therefore the people of Darfur are not in need to master the western art of conflict resolution because its alien to their nature in dealing with conflicts. There are not either in need of scholarships. They already have Ph .D. holders and Professors in this field at least I can count a dusin for you who are part of the conflict in Darfur, from the government side or those who call themselves rebels. Historically the Fur were among the first people in Sudan to know what scholarships mean and what value education has.
We are in need of Advocacy work. But what kind of Advocacy is needed? I’m totally against any advocacy that lacks facts and only add more fuel to fire. We had enough of that during the bloody conflict in the South. The world has changed with quick access to facts and no space for reconstructed films on fabricated human rights abuses like so called slavery. We can design advocacy campaigns where we demand both sides to respect that right of any Sudanese anywhere built on facts. We are in need of Peace Advocacy because we have suffered allot from War Advocacy.
Darfur became a laboratory for theories in genocide that up to now never yield a return to the people in Darfur in terms of peace and stability. I can understand your worries that none of the participants on those panels has his or her origins in Darfur. There is thousands and thousand of people who are now making a living on the suffrage of People of Darfur.
The Sudanese government, long time ago, understood that their economy is under attack. What was the result of that? Sudan has simply turned its face to China and other countries in the far east of Asia for investments in almost every sector. Today the European union desperately like to find ways and possibilities for reaching the African Markets, including Sudan, after Chinas Africans markets hijack. Yes we know that we have human parasitism in our economy but you can’t preach for punishment of all the Sudanese with sanctions and other measures the crimple the growth of development of Sudan, today Africa’s fastest growing economy. In politically change in Sudan is the responsibility of all the Sudanese at first place.
What kind of democratic process building you speak about? Both the government and the rebels know nothing about democracy and democratic process. Democracy never came up at any talks or agreements including the so-called CPA. I can only see one post of expenditure in which money collected abroad will be used and that is more arms to fuel the crisis. The money will go for buying Landcruzers mounted with doshkas, K5 and klashnikovs. The result to today is that a spill over of the conflict in Chad and Central Africa. The struggle in Sudan has always been led by farmers, workers, students, teachers and farmers. And they know who they can finance their cause from their on financial resources. So please keep hands off! In other words that is an explanation what you refer to citing a voice from Darfur “the people of Darfur have to help themselves out of this crisis, because no-one else will”
I expected more logic from a director of the centre for Darfur,,
Abu McNimmir
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)