The U.S. administration and Darfur [Archives:2007/1025/Opinion]

February 15 2007

By: Abdulrahman Ahmed Al-Sharjabi
The American administration has to take into consideration the Sudanese stand especially in the current turbulent international and unstable situation in the neighboring areas of Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Chad.

Followers of the American foreign policy through its successive administrations in more than a decade will find it basically directed towards what it has been described as the Great Middle East covering Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian issue, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, and the Western Sahara and Chad.

It is to be noted that this foreign policy pursued by all successive U.S. administrations have faced failure and were fraught with dangers and miscalculations.

The goal intended to achieve and the second is in the ways used for the realization of that goal. Here emerges the double standard of those policies represented by the declared and the hidden aims as well as the means used for achieving them and their difference according to different issues. That has led to failure of those policies and contradictions of submitted concepts. That also led to disclosure of dimensions and aims of those American policies before many observers and followers who have monitored performance of the American administration and its ways.

They have concluded the endeavor of the American administration to expand the zones of its influence and to control natural riches, particularly the oil wealth and to dominate the regimes and states in its bid to achieve its interests and security and stability for its ally Israel and its consolidation of Palestine occupation.

The U.S has taken advantage of the 9/11 events to declare what it termed its war on terror. Accordingly, it has, in cooperation of some countries allied to it, mainly Britain and Israel, worked for imposing its policy on the rest of the international community countries without taking into account opinions of those states.

Out of those policies the America resorted to adopt means and ways opposed to international norms and laws and violating international legitimacy. Thus it embarked on launching wars and changing regimes by force, occupying countries and imposing the policies compatible with its interests and so it imposed regimes subservient to it as what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Moreover, the American administration has gone too far in imposing its policies on other issues through destabilization of security and stability in countries opposing its policies via encouragement extremist organization to topple and change their authorities that came to power via elections and democracy, to which America calls whereas it works for undermining them if the results of elections come to be contradictory to its interests and policies.

Thus there is no doubt that those policies characterized by contradictions and double-standard are considered as outlaw and violating of laws and norms and international agreements. They have strongly failed in achieving their goals. This can clearly be seen in the region where those policies produced reverse results leading to expansion of the phenomenon of international terror and emergence of extremist organizations and groups in addition to destabilization in many countries and regions. Those policies cost the region and the U.S. itself many material and human losses. Despite what the situation reached the American administration did not benefit from those failures and has continued in its policy through fleeing forward. The pursuit of the American administration in its escape forward is represented by its policy regarding the question of Darfur in Sudan where it tries to besiege the Sudanese regime through encouraging extremist organizations in Darfur, west of Sudan with the aim of independence from the central government of Khartoum. The aim is to partition Sudan and separation of the areas of the south and the west that contain oil wealth. America had worked before to encourage some rebellious parties in the southern regions after a war lasted many years in which Sudan lost much and the rebellion ended up with a peace agreement under auspices of the African Unity.

The American administration succeeded in changing the movement of the liberation of south Sudan to Special Forces in the Sudanese armed forces instead of a rebellion movement and they are loyal to the U.S. administration. America is using the same method to impose a similar policy in the defer region in west Sudan and the aim is to push away the Khartoum authority from the country's oil-rich areas. The goal is to facilitate the western and the American oil companies to enter those areas and control the Sudanese oil wealth.

According to observers the American administration work for shaking security and stability in Sudan will nor enable it realize its aims and ambitions and the increase of pressure and surrounding the Sudanese regime will lead to expansion of the phenomenon of terror and extremism and encourage them in resisting its policies.

The importance of continuation of the efforts by the African Union to solve the crisis in Darfur will prevent the American administration from taking advantage of the present inability in order to pass on its policies. Consequently the conflicting parties have to understand dimensions of the American policy and to take the initiative in offering concessions to solve the differences between them. They have to work for preserving the Sudanese unity and stability which the matter that will consolidate stability in the Horn of Africa and will surround terror. It will end the war that does not serve the interests of Sudan or interests of the neighboring countries or Africa in general.