The Balkanization Of Sudan: The Redrawing Of The Middle East and North Africa

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Sudan is a diverse nation and a country that represents the plurality of Africa through various tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet the unity of Sudan is in question, while there is talk of unifying nations and of one day creating a United States of Africa through the African Union.

The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.

The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European Union.

The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan

A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could justify this.

In regards to Sudan, however, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work. One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S. sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and Ethiopia are casually ignored.

Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and motivated by Khartoum’s ties to Chinese oil interests.

Sudan supplies China with a substantial amount of oil. The geo-political rivalry between China and the U.S. for control of African and global energy supplies is the real reason for the chastisement of Sudan and the strong support shown by the U.S., the E.U., and Israeli officials for the seccession of South Sudan.

It is in this context that Chinese interests have been attacked. This includes the October 2006 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in Defra, Kordofan by the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) militia.

Distorting the Violence in Sudan

While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been manipulated and distorted.

The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic interests. If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues, which have been fuelled by outside forces.

Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training, financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum’s shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese government by the U.S., the E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving the objective of dividing Sudan.

It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate.

This is a re-enactment of the same procedures used by the U.S. and E.U. in other regions where countries have either formally or informally been divided and their economies restructured by foreign-installed proxy governments under the presence of foreign troops. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia (through the creation of several new republics) and in Anglo-American occupied Iraq (through soft balkanization via a calculated form of federalism aimed at establishing a weak and de-centralized state). Foreign troops and a foreign presence have provided the cloud for state dismantlement and the foreign takeover of state infrastructure, resources, and economies.

The Question of Identity in Sudan

While the Sudanese state has been portrayed as being oppressive towards the people in South Sudan, it should be noted that both the referendum and the power sharing structure of the Sudanese government portray something else. The power sharing agreement in Khartoum between Omar Al-Basher, the president of Sudan, includes the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and the President of South Sudan.

The issue of ethnicity has also been brought to the forefront of the regional or ethno-regional nationalism that has been cultivated in South Sudan. The cleavage in Sudan between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese has been presented to the outside world as the major force for the regional nationalism motivating calls for statehood in South Sudan. Over the years this self-differentiation has been diffused and socialized into the collective psyche of the people of South Sudan.

Yet, the difference between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese are not that great. The Arab identity of so-called Sudanese Arabs is based primarily on their use of the Arabic language. Let us even assume that both Sudanese ethnic identities are totally separate. It is still widely known in Sudan that both groups are very mixed. The other difference between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan is that Islam predominates in the rest of Sudan and not in South Sudan. Both groups are still deeply tied to one another, except for a sense of self-identification, which they are well in their rights to have. Yet, it is these different identities that have been played upon by local leaders and outside powers.

Neglect of the local population of different regions by the elites of Sudan is what the root cause of anxiety or animosity between people in South Sudan and the Khartoum government are really based on and not differences between so-called Arab and so-called African Sudanese.

Regional favouritism has been at work in South Sudan.

The issue is also compounded by social class. The people of South Sudan believe that their economic status and standards of living will improve if they form a new republic. The government in Khartoum and  non-Southerner Sudanese have been used as the scapegoats for the economic miseries of the people of South Sudan and their perceptions of relative poverty by the local leadership of South Sudan. In reality, the local officials of South Sudan will not improve the living standards of the people of South Sudan, but maintain a klepocratic status quo. [1]

The Long-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World

In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were also one country in practice until 1956.

Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as exploiting the South Sudanese.

After the British invasion of Egypt and Sudan, the British also managed to keep their troops stationed in Sudan. Even while working to divide Sudan from Egypt, the British worked to create internal differentations between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan. This was done through the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, from 1899 to 1956, which forced Egypt to share Sudan with Britain after the Mahdist Revolts. Eventually the Egyptian government would come to refuse to recognize the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium as legal. Cairo would continously ask the British to end their illegal military occupation of Sudan and to stop preventing the re-integration of Egypt and Sudan, but the British would refuse.

It would be under the presence of British troops that Sudan would declare itself independent. This is what lead to the emergence of Sudan as a separate Arab and African state from Egypt. Thus, the balkanization process started with the division of Sudan from Egypt.

The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East

The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon Plan is to ensure Israeli superiority through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called “After Iraq: What Will the Middle East Look Like?” [2] In the Goldberg article a map of the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military’s Armed Forces Journal in 2006.

It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg’s article, Eritrea is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.

In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. This has been achieved through the soft balkanization of federalism in Iraq, which has allowed the Kurdistan Regional Government to negotiate with foreign oil corporations on its own. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which is discussed in the Yinon Plan.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exasperate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. The division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means of balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan is to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze.

In this regard, the Hariri Assassination and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) have been playing out to the favour of Israel in creating internal divisions within Lebanon and fuelling politically-motivated sectarianism. This is why Tel Aviv has been very vocal about the STL and very supportive of it. In a clear sign of the politized nature of the STL and its ties to geo-politics, the U.S. and Britain have also given the STL millions of dollars.

The Links between the Attacks on the Egyptian Copts and the South Sudan Referendum

From Iraq to Egypt, Christians in the Middle East have been under attack, while tensions between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims are being fuelled. The attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria on January 1, 2011 or the subsequent Coptic protests and riots should not be looked at in isolation. [3] Nor should the subsequent fury of Coptic Christians expressed towards Muslims and the Egyptian government. These attacks on Christians are tied to the broader geo-political goals of the U.S., Britain, Israel, and NATO in the Middle East and Arab World.

The Yinon Plan stipulates that if Egypt were divided that Sudan and Libya would also be balkanized and weakened. In this context, there is a link between Sudan and Egypt. According to the Yinon Plan, the Copts or Christians of Egypt, which are a large minority in Egypt, are the key to the balkanization of the Arab states in North Africa. Thus, the Yinon Plan states that the creation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt (South Egypt) and Christian-Muslim tensions within Egyptian are vital steps to balkanizing Sudan and North Africa.

The attacks on Christians in the Middle East are part of intelligence operations intended to divide the Middle East and North Africa. The timing of the mounting attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt and the build-up to the referendum in South Sudan are no coincidence. The events in Sudan and Egypt are linked to one another and are part of the project to balkanize the Arab World and the Middle East. They must also be studied in conjunction with the Yinon Plan and with the events in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as in relation to the efforts to create a Shiite-Sunni divide.

The Outside Connections of the SPLM, SSLA, and Militias in Darfour

As in the case of Sudan, outside interference or intervention has been used to justify the oppression of domestic opposition. Despite its corruption, Khartoum has been under siege for refusing to merely be a proxy.

Sudan is justified in suspecting foreign troops and accusing the U.S., Britain, and Israel of eroding the national solidarity of Sudan. For example, Israel has sent arms to the opposition groups and separatist movements in Sudan. This was done through Ethiopia for years until Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and Eritreans. Afterwards Israeli weapons entered South Sudan from Kenya. From South Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the political arm of the SSLA, would transfer weapons to the militias in Darfur. The governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), have also been working closely with the U.S., Britain, and Israel in East Africa.

The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition and separatist groups is significant. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel and its members and supporters regularly visit Israel. It is due to this that Khartoum capitulated and removed the Sudanese passport restriction on visiting Israel in late-2009 to satisfy the SPLM. [4] Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that South Sudan will recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.

The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that separatist groups in Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:

[Sudan People's Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced establishment of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement office in Israel, a press release said today.

“After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the supporters of SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of SPLM in Israel.” Said [sic.] a statement received by email from Tel Aviv signed by the SLMP secretariat in Israel.

The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open in any country including Israel. It also indicated that there are around 400 SPLM supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur said last week he opened an office in Tel Aviv. [5]

The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan

What happened to the dreams of a united Africa or a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses as has African unity. The Arab World and Africa have consistenly been balkanized.

Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World are on the U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.

The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the  U.S., Britain, and Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and the Middle East.

The resulting process of “democratization” leading up to the January 2011 referendum serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true national sovereignty in South Sudan.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

NOTES

[1] A kleptocracy is a government or/and state that works to protect, extend, deepen, continue, and entrench the wealth of the ruling class.
[2] Jeffrey Goldberg, “After Iraq: What Will The Middle East Look Like?” The Atlantic, January/February 2008.
[3] William Maclean, “Copts on global Christmas alert after Egypt bombing”, Reuters, January 5, 2011.
[4] “Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport”, Sudan Tribune, October 3, 2009:
<http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?iframe&page=imprimable&id_article=32776>.
[5] “Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel – statement”, Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008:
<http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?page=imprimable&id_article=26251>.

ANNEX: THE ATLANTIC MAP OF THE “NEW MIDDLE EAST”

Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008. (Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008).

Our Man In Sudan

Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

An Ex-Wall Street Banker Jets Off To South Sudan To Show How Investors Are Rushing To Africa In A Modern-Day Land-Grab.

This film follows former Wall Street banker, Phil Heilberg, who reveals what goes on behind the scenes in the modern-day version of land grabs.

Since the collapse of the global financial markets, Western investors have been looking for lucrative opportunities, especially in countries with internal conflict, such as Sudan.

With an increasing world population and the high price of raw materials, agricultural land is seen as a safe bet.

But with so much cheap land on offer, foreign speculators are flocking to Africa.

Death On The Nile

Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

As Ethiopia Diverts The River To Build A Dam, We Examine The Impact On Water Supply For Egypt's Growing Population.

The River Nile has been a source of life for millions over the centuries. Now Ethiopia is diverting water to build a giant dam, and those downstream who depend on the river, are left wondering when and whether this issue can be resolved peacefully.

The Nile is the longest river in Africa, flowing through 11 countries of the continent.

It has two major tributaries, the White Nile and the Blue Nile. The Blue Nile is the source of almost 85 percent of the river's water. It begins in Lake Tana in northern Ethiopia and flows into Sudan where it meets the White Nile in Khartoum - they then flow to Egypt as the Nile River.


Ethiopia, one of the countries through which the river flows, wants to divert parts of it to create a $4.7bn hydroelectric dam, the 11th biggest in the world. The dam is part of a $12bn programme called The Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

The investment which aims to boost power exports has sparked concerns in Egypt and Sudan. The two countries say that the construction of this dam violates a colonial era agreement from 1959, which gave them rights to almost 90 percent of the Nile's waters.

For hundreds of years, Ethiopian Kings have warned of their power to divert waters of the Nile but never made good on their threats.

"Now, what we are seeing with Somalia becoming increasingly fragmented, and the division of Sudan and Egypt having to deal with its internal problems, is ... Ethiopia becoming more powerful. And as a result, Ethiopia can start to exert some of its rights and access to the river," says Cleo Paskal, a specialist in water and food security.

The consequences of the Ethiopia's dam could be very serious for Egypt, which as a dry country, is heavily reliant on the Nile for its water supply. And that supply could suffer a loss of between 11 and 19bn cubic meters of water, while the dam is being built.

According to experts, that would cause two million Egyptian families to lose their income.


The Ethiopian dam could also affect Egypt's electricity supply by 25 to 40 percent, which would leave Upper Egypt in darkness.

Lastly, with a growing population that is expected to hit 150 million by 2050, Egypt will need an extra 21bn cubic meters of water in order to cope with the growth, which makes the dam construction even more serious in the long term.

So, how is the Egyptian government going to deal with the construction of the controversial dam? And how can Egypt actually turn it into a beneficial project?   

To discuss this, Inside Story, with presenter David Foster, is joined by guests: Bereket Simon, Ethiopian minister of information; Lama el-Hatow, co-founder of water institute of the Nile and specialist in water governance and climate change; and Cleo Paskal from Chatham House, specialist in water and food security and writer of Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map.

Hidden Hands Behind Sudan's Oil War

The fact remains, however, that wherever there is oil political narratives cannot possibly be so simple. Sudan is caught in a multidimensional conflict involving weapons trade, internal instabilities, multiple civil wars and the reality of outside players with their own interests.

By: Ramzy Baroud
4/28/12
Courtesy Of "Iviews"

Once again Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir waved his walking stick in the air. Once again he spoke of splendid victories over his enemies as thousands of jubilant supporters danced and cheered. But this time around the stakes are too high. 

An all out war against newly independent South Sudan might not be in Sudan's best interest. South Sudan's saber-rattling is not an entirely independent initiative; its most recent territorial transgressions - which saw the occupation of Sudan's largest oil field in Heglig on April 10, followed by a hasty retreat ten days later - might have been a calculated move aimed at drawing Sudan into a larger conflict. 

Stunted by the capture of Heglig, which, according to some estimates, provides nearly half of the country's oil production, Bashir promised victory over Juba. Speaking to large crowd in the capital of North Kordofan, El-Obeid, Bashir affectively declared war. "Heglig isn't the end, it is the beginning," he said, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Bashir also declared a desire to 'liberate' the people of South Sudan from a government composed of 'insects.' Even when Heglig was declared a liberated region by Sudan's defence minister, the humiliation of defeat was simply replaced by the fervor of victory. "They started the fighting and we will announce when it will end, and our advance will never stop," Bashir announced on April 20.

Statements issued by the government of South Sudan are clearly more measured, with an international target audience in mind. Salva Kiir, President of South Sudan, simply said that his forces departed the region following appeals made by the international community. This includes a statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which described the attack on Heglig as "an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act" (Reuters, April 19). A day before the hasty withdrawal, South Sudan government spokesman Barnaba Marial Benjamin claimed there had been no conflict in the first place. His statement was both bewildering and patronizing. He considered Sudan, which was then rallying for war to recapture its oil-rich area, a neighbor and "friendly nation", and claimed that "up to now we have not crossed even an inch into Sudan" (Associated Press, April 19).

The fact remains, however, that wherever there is oil political narratives cannot possibly be so simple. Sudan is caught in a multidimensional conflict involving weapons trade, internal instabilities, multiple civil wars and the reality of outside players with their own interests. None of this is enough to excuse the readiness for war on behalf of Khartoum and Juba, but it certainly presents serious obstacles to any attempt aimed at rectifying the situation. 

With a single act of aggression, a whole set of conflicts are prone to flaring up. It is the nature of proxy politics, as many armed groups seek opportunities for territorial advances and financial gains. News reports already speak of a possible involvement of Uganda should the fledging war between Khartoum and Juba cross conventional boundaries. "As the possibility of a full-fledged war became unnervingly higher, General Aronda Nyakairima, chief of Uganda's defense forces, said that his army might be compelled to intervene if Bashir did overthrow South Sudan's regime," reported Alexis Okeowo in the New Yorker website (April 20). Both Sudans are fighting their own war against various rebel groups. Despite the lack of basic food in parts of the region, plenty of weapons effortlessly find inroads to wherever there is potential strife. 

In a statement published last July, Amnesty International called on UN member states to control arm shipments to both Sudan and South Sudan. It accused the US, Russia and China of fueling violations in the Sudan conflict through the arms trade.

US support of South Sudan is already well known. "The US reportedly provided $100 million-a-year in military assistance to the SPLA (Sudan People's Liberation Army)," according to Russia Today on April 19, citing a December 2009 diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks. 

According to political author and columnist Reason Wafawarova, US interest in South Sudan is neither accidental nor motivated by humanitarian issues. He told RT, "It would not be surprising if the US is trying to capitalize on the vulnerability of South Sudan in its efforts to establish the AFRICOM base somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa." RT goes on to reference Sudan's Al-Intibaha newspaper for its reports on Israeli weapon supplies to Juba. 

US and Israeli military support of Juba is not a new phenomenon. Sudan's civil war (1983-2005), which cost an estimated 2.5 million lives, could not have lasted as long as it did without steady sources of military funding. And while the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the January 9-15, 2011 referendum, and finally the independence of South Sudan in July were all meant to usher in a new era of peace and cooperation, none actualized. Sudan's territorial concessions proved most costly, and South Sudan, destroyed and landlocked, was ripe for outside exploitation.

Both countries are now caught in a deadly embrace. They can neither part ways completely, nor cooperate successfully without a risk of war at every turn. Bashir also knows he is running out of options. While Khartoum has already "lost three-quarters of its oil revenue after the secession," according Egypt's Al Ahram Weekly, "now it is poised to lose the rest."

Naturally, a conflict of this magnitude cannot be resolved by empty gestures and reassuring statements. The conflict has been festering for decades, and war has been the only common language. Powerful countries, including the US, Russia, China, but also Israel and regional Arab and Africa players exploited the conflict to their advantage whenever possible. In a recent analysis, the International Crisis Group in Brussels advised that a "new strategy is needed to avert an even bigger crisis." The crisis group recommends that the "UN Security Council must reassert itself to preserve international peace and security, including the implementation of border monitoring tasks as outlined by UN Interim Security Force in Abyei."

Expecting the Security Council to act in political tandem seems a bit too optimistic, however. Considering that the US is arming and supporting South Sudan, and that Russia and China continue to support Khartoum, the rivalry in fact exists within the UN itself.

For a sustainable future peace arrangement, Sudan's territorial integrity must be respected, and South Sudan must not be pushed to the brink of desperation. Rivalries between the US, China and Russia cannot continue at the expense of nations that teeter between starvation and civil wars. And whatever hidden hands that continue to exploit Sudan's woes now need to be exposed and isolated.

*****

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

CIA Training Sudan's Spies

By Jeff Stein
Posted at 1:15 PM ET, 08/30/2010
Courtesy Of "The Washington Post"

American officials may be at odds over U.S. policy toward Sudan, but the CIA is soldiering on there.

.

.

Despite that, the CIA is continuing to train and equip Sudan’s intelligence service in the name of fighting terrorism.

The irony is not lost on critics of the arrangement.

“The U.S. government is training the Sudanese intelligence services and conducting bilateral operations with them -- all in the name of the long war,” said a former intelligence officer who served in Sudan.

“We also refer to the Sudanese as a state sponsor of terror, have called their activities in Darfur genocide, and supported the issuance of arrest warrants for the Sudanese president for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined by the International Criminal Court.”

“Certainly," the former intelligence officer added, "the CIA is providing training to the National Intelligence and Security Service,” known as the NISS. “I suspect it was begun … in the very early days after September 11.”

Others say it began in the 1990s.

In the beginning, the CIA-NISS relationship was very close-hold, he said, even shielded from other CIA personnel in the embassy because of concerns over Sudan’s grievous human rights record. Training sessions were probably done outside the country, he guessed.

“There has also been transfers of equipment” to the NISS, he said, “computers, etcetera.”

Another knowledgeable former U.S. intelligence official said the CIA-NISS partnership began even earlier, in the Clinton administration, and called it "incredibly valuable."

"We have a had a long term relationship with the Sudanese, even when they closed the embassy for a short period in the late 90s," the official said on condition of anonymity because the topic is so sensitive.

"We do not do much training with the Sudanese, except in the field of counterterrorism, and they have been an exceptional partner in helping us against the terrorist target."

The CIA's curriculum with the NISS "is pretty much the same as regular humint/CO [human intelligence/case officer] training, with a focus on targeting the terrorist, i.e., setting up meetings in secure places with surveillance and countersurveillance, knowing what info to look for, keeping all pocket litter, not allowing them to erase cell phones or computers," the former official said. "It also involves 'take downs' of terrorists or their organizations ..."

In 2005, Bush administration CIA director Porter Goss nurtured the connection.

“The CIA flew Salah Gosh, head of the NISS, here to the U.S. in one of their jets during 2005,” the former intelligence officer who served in Sudan said. "He is up to his butt in the genocide in Darfur."

Only last month, Amnesty International charged that "the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) is carrying out a brutal campaign of killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, and mental and physical intimidation against opponents and critics of the government."

"The NISS uses a variety of torture methods," it added, "including: beating detainees while held upside down against a wall, electric shocks, whipping, sleep deprivation, kicking and stamping on detainees and beating them with water pipes."

CIA spokesman George Little declined to comment on the agency's relationship with the NISS, saying, “This agency does not, as a rule, comment on reports of relationships with foreign intelligence services.”

Likewise at the White House, National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said, "We are not going to speak about our ongoing counter-terrorism and intelligence programs with any specific country other than to say that we face significant terrorism related challenges in East Africa, and it is essential that we be able to work in partnership with the countries of the region to identify and disrupt potential terrorist networks."

Some U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the CIA's program contend that the spy agency's relationship with the NISS actually fosters human rights.

"The intelligence channel has been one tool our government has used to try to influence the Sudanese in terms of human rights and the rule of law,” said one such official. “That was a deliberate policy decision, made with inter-agency support, and—while everyone has their eyes wide open to everything that still needs to happen—the dialogue has had its benefits."

Another, a senior administration official, said, "We're not blind" to the reality of Sudan. "Everybody understands what's going on there."

"If the Sudanese go outside the box," he maintained, "we can pull the plug."

Such explanations evoke the darkest days of the Cold War, when successive U.S. administrations used the same rationales for allowing the CIA to have close relations with the security services of some of the world’s worst human rights violators, from South Africa to Argentina, Guatemala and Chile, saying they were necessary for the shadowy fight against Soviet-backed communism.

And as during that time, Obama administration officials have barely concealed their sharp differences over what to do about Sudan.

Sudan Referendum May Be Only The Beginning

By Jim Lobe,
January 07, 2011
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

Amid growing certainty that the much-anticipated weeklong referendum on independence for south Sudan will indeed begin Sunday as scheduled, U.S. officials and independent experts are warning that the situation in both the north and the south is likely to remain very fragile for some time to come.

Ensuring that the referendum’s outcome — almost certain to overwhelmingly favor secession — is respected and that the as-yet-unfulfilled provisions of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between Khartoum and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) are completed will require continued high-level attention from the international community, according to analysts. 

"The plan is absolutely to stay engaged," Gayle Smith, a Sudan specialist on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council, told an audience at the Brookings Institution here Thursday. "There is no expectation that we’re going to dial (our involvement in Sudan) back," she added, noting that Washington is also committed to mobilize support from other key players. 

Analysts are also concerned that the referendum results could stoke renewed tensions and violence in other restive regions, such as Darfur, South Kordofan, and the Upper Nile regions, that could threaten the north’s integrity. 

"The situation in the North is very fragile and needs to be managed very carefully," according to Hilde Johnson, the former Norwegian development minister who played a critical role in negotiating the CPA and has just published a book on her experience, "Waging Peace in Sudan." 

"If the situation is not managed well, the risk is not only a failed state (in Sudan), but a fragmented state as well," Johnson, currently deputy executive director of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), told the same Brookings audience. 

The fact that the referendum, which appeared very much in doubt as recently as one month ago, now looks certain to take place has come as an immense relief to the Obama administration, which greatly intensified its lagging diplomatic efforts behind the process beginning in late August. 

The stakes are very high. If the results of the referendum are rejected by Khartoum, the civil war that was halted by the CPA is considered highly likely to resume. Some two million people, the vast majority of them southerners, are believed to have died as a result of that conflict. 

Indeed, the south’s government in Juba has spent some 40 percent of its budget on buying arms and building its military capacity, while, in defiance of the CPA’s terms, Khartoum has failed to disarm tribal militias along the border that have historically been aligned with it. 

Nonetheless, officials and experts have been encouraged by recent events, particularly the smoother-than-expected voter registration process in advance of the referendum. 

And they were pleasantly surprised, if not completely reassured, Tuesday when Sudanese President Omar Hassan al- Bashir traveled to the southern capital of Juba and appeared to accept the inevitability of the south’s independence.

"…I will be happy if we have peace in Sudan between the two sides," said Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and genocide in connection with his government’s brutal counterinsurgency campaign in Darfur that was launched in 2003. 

"Even after the southern state is born, we are ready in the Khartoum government to offer any technical or logistical support and training or advice. We are ready to help," he added. 

Still, distrust of Bashir and his government remains high here, particularly in light of their failure to date to reach agreement with the south’s government, headed by Vice President Salva Kirr Mayardit, on several key provisions of the CPA. 

Those include, among others, the fate of the oil-rich region of Abyei along the north-south border, which was also supposed to be decided by a second referendum conducted at the same time as the one that begins Sunday but which was delayed by a presidentially appointed commission last month due to disagreements over whether a members of a nomadic group with close ties to Khartoum would be allowed to vote. 

The U.S. and its two partners in the so-called Troika that helped negotiate the CPA – Britain and Norway – have reportedly been pushing both parties hard for an agreement on the Abyei referendum by Sunday, but that deadline appears unlikely to be met, according to U.S. officials. 

The fact that the Abyei referendum is not taking place on time was "of significant concern", Johnson said Tuesday. 

The two sides have also failed to conclude an agreement on how the revenues from oil produced in both the north and the south are to be shared if, as seems almost certain, the south becomes independent. The current agreement, under which oil revenues from southern fields are split 50:50, expires in July. 

Revenue from Sudan’s oil exports, which have increased six-fold over the past decade, currently accounts for 90 percent of the country’s export earnings and finances nearly all of south Sudan’s budget, excluding foreign aid, and about two-thirds of the national government’s budget. 

About 80 percent of the country’s total production, however, comes from southern fields — even more if voters in an Abyei referendum cast their lot with the south. 

Nonetheless, despite southern plans to eventually ship its oil through alternate routes, the south will remain dependent on Sudan to get its oil to ports for the foreseeable future. This gives Khartoum substantial leverage in the negotiations over future revenue-sharing, according to Rich Williamson, who served as special envoy on Sudan under the George W. Bush administration. 

"Both sides will be greedy," he said Tuesday, adding that the U.S. and other major international players will likely have to maintain a high level of engagement and pressure to gain an eventual agreement on both revenue-sharing and the other outstanding issues in the six months between the referendum and the formal birth of a new state. 

"I want to praise …the level of involvement by the administration and President Obama himself over the last few months," said Williamson, who has accused the administration in harsh terms for being too solicitous of the Bashir government in the past. "But I think it will get more difficult." 

In November, the administration indicated it would remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism as early as next July if the referendum goes smoothly and several other key pending CPA provisions are resolved. 

Williamson and other analysts agree that neither side has an interest in re-igniting the civil war, but warn that violent incidents — such as one that triggered the burning of the town of Abyei in May 2008, or deliberate provocations by spoilers — could quickly spiral out of control. 

"The United States must be prepared to respond to any eventuality," Democratic Rep. Donald Payne, a long-time critic of Bashir, who, like Williamson, has been skeptical of Khartoum’s sincerity. He called for "comprehensive contingency planning", subject to continuous review "throughout the foreseeable future."

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Jim Lobe

• New Poll Underlines Gloom Shrouding ‘Peace Process’ – December 9th, 2010
• Mideast Peace Key to Countering Iran, Arabs Told US Diplomats  – December 8th, 2010
• Obama Pushes START Treaty to Top of Legislative Agenda – December 2nd, 2010
• Washington Insiders Fret Over WikiLeaks Dump – November 29th, 2010
• Hawks, Doves Aflutter Over Pyongyang’s Latest Moves – November 24th, 2010

South Sudan, A New Border Between Africa and The Arab World?

By Shlomo Ben-Ami
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Courtesy Of "The Daily Star"

T­he Comprehensive Peace Agreement (C.P.A.) that was reached in 2005 between mostly Christian Southern Sudan and the country’s Muslim North, ended one of the bloodiest civil wars in modern times. Lasting 22 years, that war left more than two million dead. Now the C.P.A. is poised to face its most vital test: the South’s referendum on independence, scheduled to start this Sunday, Jan. 9.

Whether or not a new state is born in one of the most strategically sensitive areas of the world is of utmost concern to Sudan’s neighbors and others. Vital issues are at stake: the scramble for oil; China’s robust presence in Sudan; the West’s desire to see a mostly Christian state break the contiguity of Muslim regimes – and the consequent threat of Islamic radicalism – in the region; the regional distribution of the Nile’s waters; and the possibility that independence for the South might lead to Sudan’s total dismemberment along ethnic and religious lines.

The fact that Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president, was not especially keen to agree to the United Nations’ plan to beef up its peacekeeping force in the country ahead of the referendum raised concern about his intentions. He would certainly have been happy to delay the vote – and, if it is held, to dispute its legitimacy.

He might not find that very difficult. Preparations for the referendum are lagging and inadequate. Brinkmanship and broken agreements threaten to turn the referendum’s technical and political difficulties into yet another disaster for the country. The 2.5 million Southerners known to live in the North are under explicit instructions by the South’s Sudan People’s Liberation Army (S.P.L.A.) to boycott the vote, as the S.P.L.A. has grounds to believe that Bashir would use their registration to rig the results in favor of unity.

Indeed, if not convincingly deterred by the international community, it is extremely difficult to believe that Bashir would let the South secede without a fight. A crucial bone of contention that might ignite a new war is the future of the country’s oil industry and the North-South border demarcation. So far, the good offices of the Norwegian government have failed to produce an agreement on the key question of the post-independence distribution of oil revenues between North and South.

Given that most of Sudan’s oil wealth is concentrated in the South, the management of the industry and its revenues after secession is an existential problem for Bashir’s regime and its capacity to control his vast and ethnically diverse country. It is in the oil-rich border areas that a new war might erupt.

As one of the poorest and neediest countries in the world, for which oil revenues would be the only source of income for years to come, an independent South Sudan could not be expected to rescue the debt-ridden North. Its own challenge lies in reforming the entire oil industry, which for years has been brutally and irresponsibly exploited by Chinese and Malaysian companies, with devastating environmental consequences.

Conspicuously, Bashir’s regime has been disqualified in the eyes of its neighbors in Africa and the Arab world to a degree that makes the South’s secession a more acceptable option to the main regional stakeholders than ever before. Indeed, the Arab world as a whole seems to have given up on Bashir. Some Arab leaders still toy with the idea that overthrowing him might yet salvage a united Sudan, but it is probably too late for that.

After failing to moderate Bashir into accepting a secular decentralized or confederate Sudan, Egypt, a key Arab player concerned about the stability of its southern border, has come to accept the inevitability of secession – so long as the new state lines up with it on the issue of the Nile’s waters.

Egypt’s fears are mainly of Sudan’s disintegration into a chaotic tapestry of mini-states controlled by warlords and plunged into lawlessness and bloody tribal feuds. In that case, what remains of “Sudan” – Khartoum, Gezira, and the two northern states – might degenerate even further, probably turning into a base for global Islamic terrorism.

Black Africa, particularly the East African Community (E.A.C.), cannot think of any solution other than secession. To E.A.C. members, this is a matter of de-colonization, for Southern Sudan’s people have been enslaved, dehumanized, and humiliated for centuries by the Arabs.

Hence, as the Kenyans put it, the border between northern and southern Sudan should become the border between Black Africa and the Arab world. Concerned by Bashir’s delaying tactics, both Kenya and Uganda have advised their southern Sudanese friends not to make demarcation of the border a pre-condition for the referendum, as doing so would only play into Bashir’s hands.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rightly defined the upcoming referendum as a “ticking time bomb.” She also made it clear, however, that the outcome, independence for the South, is “inevitable.” But, to avoid a cataclysm, the U.S. and its allies must defuse the bomb by enforcing the provisions of the 2005 C.P.A., which they all endorsed. They would have virtually all of the regional stakeholders on their side as well.

Shlomo Ben Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.”

THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).