Re: OT: The Century Ahead

This is the kind of tripe those who have never been trained in
intelligence analysis and review usually bring up. They'll glob onto
any recent news story as a case to back up an argument without
performing any historical exegesis. (I'll do it myself sometimes to get
a laugh.)

Of all the North African news I've read over the past 8 years. It is
apparent that Sudan is following Qaddafi's lead in having an anti-terror
Epiphany.

Obviously a little too slowly.

But there were mitigating circumstances. Libya on one hand is fairly
homogenous. What Qaddafi says, goes. Sudan on the other hand is not
so.

The key were the Southern Rebels (SR), after 20 years of fighting signed
a peace treaty with the North, and over the past year have been
incorporated into to Sudan's government infrastructure, including key
posts in regular security forces. Without last year's SR peace deal
(brokered by the U.S. by-the-way, an event that you so conveniently
forget, Herr Baier,) there'd be no doubt that Sudan would still be on
GWB's ***-list.

Basically the SR's get Autonomy for 6-years. After which they get to
vote on secession. So for that period of time, you can bet the North is
gonna suck-up to the South to keep them happy.

In the meantime, they're stuck with the organized Janjaweed (JW), an
Arab term that means little more than "bandit." The the JW's being the
nomad side of centuries long conflict between nomads and farmers.

The JWs however, are not one of Sudan's international exports such as
other countries who export Al-Qaeda. The furthest the JW's get are the
Chadian border. Incursions to which Chad has stated it is in a state of
war. The prosecution of which is highly unlikely given the state of
both countries armed forces.




Tracy Johnson
Measurement Specialties, Inc.

BT







NNNN


> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion
> [mailto:HP3000-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Baier
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:15 PM
> To: HP3000-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: The Century Ahead
>
>
> Brice, what about Sudan?
> George the Christian just stands and watches?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,1586995,00.html
>
> Darfur wasn't genocide and Sudan is not a terrorist state
> Even MI6 and the CIA are frustrated by the attitude of US
> neocons and the
> Christian right towards the Sudanese conflicts
>
> Jonathan Steele in Khartoum Friday October 7, 2005 The Guardian
>
> Question: when do Bush administration officials cuddle up to
> leaders of
> states that the US describes as sponsors of international terrorism?
> Answer: when they are in Khartoum. I know because I saw it
> the other day.
> It was in the garden of the headquarters of Sudan's
> intelligence service,
> not far from the Nile. Fairy lights twinkled on wires draped
> round palm
> trees. African drummers played. Sadly, no alcohol was served,
> but clearly
> there was something in the air.
>
> Up stepped a senior CIA agent. In full view of the assembled
> company, he
> gave General Salah Abdallah Gosh, Sudan's intelligence boss,
> a bear hug.
> The general responded by handing over a goody-bag, wrapped in
> shiny green
> paper. Next up was a senior MI6 official, with the same
> effusive routine -
> hug, hand-shake, bag of presents.
> We were attending the closing dinner of a two-day conference
> of African
> counter-terrorism officials, to which the US and the UK were
> invited as
> observers. The western spooks were less than happy to have
> the press on
> hand, especially as their names were called out. But loss of
> anonymity was
> a small price for the excellent cooperation both agencies
> believe Sudan is
> giving in the campaign to keep tabs on Somali, Saudi and other Arab
> fundamentalists who pass through its territory.
>
> Pragmatic Britain has had polite relations with Sudan's
> Islamist government
> since it took power in a military coup in 1989. Ideological
> Washington has
> not. Bill Clinton designated Sudan a terrorist state in 1993
> and later
> slapped on trade sanctions, partly under pressure from Congress and
> America's Christian right.
>
> US officials have produced no proof that Sudan finances,
> trains or harbours
> terrorists, and the Bush people would probably lift the bans
> if they could.
> But once on the terrorism-sponsor list, few countries manage
> to get off. It
> is a rare case where the great warrior on terror finds
> himself trapped by
> US politicians even more extreme than himself.
>
> Bush's Sudan policy contains other big contradictions. As
> secretary of
> state last year, Colin Powell described the conflict in the
> western region
> of Darfur as "genocide". He had hesitated for months, because
> a finding of
> genocide requires a state to take immediate action to stop
> it. Yet what did
> the US do next? Nothing, or at least no more than many other states,
> including Britain, which did not want the genocide label to
> be lightly
> used, and so devalued.
>
> The US supported an armed African Union (AU) mission to
> monitor a ceasefire
> and protect humanitarian relief. It pressed for a peace deal. More
> reluctantly than any other state, it supported an inquiry
> that could lead
> to indictments of Sudanese leaders at the international
> criminal court. But
> Washington's lack of follow-through showed that, as with the
> terrorism
> label, the genocide finding was a sop to the Christian right
> and anti- Islamist neocons.
>
> Coverage of Darfur has dwindled, but AU monitors, as well as
> UN officials
> in Khartoum, report a marked improvement since last year's
> campaign of rape
> and killing left close to 200,000 dead and forced 2 million to flee.
> Janjaweed militias, usually backed by the government in
> clashes with rebel
> groups, were behind most of the atrocities.
>
> Thriving on bad news - typical was Caroline Moorehead's
> Letter from Darfur
> in the New York Review of Books this summer - commentators
> who still write
> about Darfur often thunder away without any sense of time or
> context. In
> fact, the UN secretary general's latest report to the
> security council
> points out that the influx of 12,500 aid workers has "averted a
> humanitarian catastrophe, with no major outbreaks of disease
> or famine".
> Patrols by the hundreds of AU monitors have reduced violence
> and other
> human-rights violations.
>
> The report attacks the government for not disarming the Janjaweed or
> holding enough people accountable for last year's atrocities,
> but it blames
> the rebels for most of this year's abductions of civilians
> and attacks on
> aid convoys.
>
> In recent weeks there has been a turn for the worse. A new
> chain of tit-for- tat violence is developing. Janjaweed
> forces attacked a displaced people's
> camp in western Darfur last week, an unprecedented assault on
> a sanctuary
> in which at least 30 people died, and AU monitors report that
> government
> helicopter gunships were seen over the camp. This may have
> been retaliation
> for a rebel seizure of a town a few days earlier.
>
> To its credit, Washington has stepped up efforts to get the
> anti-government
> rebels to stop blocking the peace talks now under way in
> Abuja. As inter- ethnic tensions among the rebels grow
> stronger, leaders of the Zaghawa, the
> main fighters, are unwilling to attend despite face-to-face
> pleas from US
> and UN diplomats urging them to accept the model that ended
> the much longer
> war between the government and the south.
>
> Former southern rebels, who recently joined the Islamists in
> Sudan's new
> government of national unity, will soon go to Abuja for the
> first time, to
> act as mediators if necessary. This is a big step forward. As
> Riek Machar,
> the new vice-president of south Sudan told me in Juba last week: "We
> believe we are the people who can crack the issue of Darfur. We have
> experience of negotiating a settlement with the group governing in
> Khartoum. We will take that experience to Abuja. The
> liberation movements
> have confidence in us."
>
> Even if peace were agreed, implementation would be rocky. The
> north-south
> deal has made a poor start. The Arab-led former ruling party
> denied its new
> southern partners any of Sudan's key ministries; this will
> not encourage
> the Darfurians. UN analysts believe peace-building in Darfur
> will be harder
> than in the south. "Destruction progressed over 20 years in
> the south, and
> it wasn't mainly done by locals. It was done by the Sudanese army and
> militias from outside. In Darfur you've had dozens of ethnic groups
> clashing ... Some won, some lost, and it has been very quick.
> Bitterness
> and hatred are still raw," said one official.
>
> Grim though it has been, this was not genocide or classic
> ethnic cleansing.
> Many of the displaced moved to camps a few kilometres from
> their homes.
> Professionals and intellectuals were not targeted, as in
> Rwanda. Darfur
> was, and is, the outgrowth of a struggle between farmers and
> nomads rather
> than a Balkan-style fight for the same piece of land. Finding
> a solution is
> not helped by turning the violence into a battle of good
> versus evil or
> launching another Arab-bashing crusade.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:48:42 -0500, Brice Yokem
> <byokem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >GWB did, what he wanted to do and what is best for the
> oil-industry. He
> >lied to everybody incl. the UN security council. Ok, here he send,
> >Colin Powell. But Powell presented the same documents and
> >lies that GWB, Karl Rove and *** Cheney had fabricated.
> >
> >In Iraq, surprisingly, alot of the sanctions worked.
> >They did not have any WMD nor the capability to attack anyone, which
> >was the main reason for the sanctions. Alot worked in Iraq.
> >
> >They why, out of at least 20 countries, are only the Iraqies
> given this
> >"chance"? What about all these African countries without OIL?
> >Don't they deserve a chance?
> >Or North Korea?
> >Or China?
> >
> >-------------------------
> >
> >You are stating opinion as fact here.
> >
> >The 'lies' had more to do with George Tenant then with the
> people you
> >present as 'liars'. He has more complicity in this WMD
> issue than any
> >of the others, yet you leave his name out.
> >
> >The oil for food program was massively corrupted by the UN.
> Shorting
> >people on food and medicine, and yet you say it 'worked'. The
> >capability to create poison gas and weaponized disease existed and
> >could have been cranked up on short notice once the rest of
> the world's
> >attention was diverted.
> >
> >Iraq was still in violation of UN resolutions, and did still
> have some
> >poison gas.
> >
> >So what if it is about oil? The people are being given a chance to
> >choose what kind of government they want. You say they
> should not be
> >given that chance because of China or North Korea or 20 other
> >countries. Well I say we should give them the chance and
> people like
> >you should work to that end instead of grousing about why we
> are there.
> >If mistakes were made we can review that after we have done
> everything
> >we can to make the effort in Iraq successful.
> >
> >With regard to North Korea, we did make an attempt there but the
> >success of that effort was to politicized to work. Some day we may
> >have to finish that job too.
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> >=============================================================
> ==========
> >==
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

.