The US and Its Allies: “Israel and the Janjaweed Are Innocent!”

By Ambassador Rashad Farraj Al-Tayyib
Researcher in Thought and International Relations

The recent rejection by the US Congress of a proposal submitted by a member of the Senate to oblige the US administration to study the possibility of designating the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as a terrorist organisation came as yet another revelation of the depth of Western double standards and the collapse of the moral criteria that major powers have long boasted about.

And the matter did not stop at the US Congress alone; thus far, neither the US administration nor European states, nor a single country orbiting within American influence – whether Arab or Islamic – nor even the United Nations system itself, has dared to describe this militia as a terrorist group, despite its blatant immersion in the blood of innocent Sudanese civilians, and despite the massive volume of crimes that have surpassed the limits of any political or legal terminology.

This reality alone suffices to illustrate the structure upon which this article is built: that the West has fallen morally before it collapsed politically, and that the masks it has long hidden behind are no longer capable of concealing the truth of a decaying civilisation that has lost its connection to justice and conscience.

For decades, the West has placed itself in the position of judge and legislator, distributing certificates of legitimacy and determining who is civilised and who is backward, who deserves support and who deserves punishment.

But every time it faces an ethical test, its positions reveal nothing but a purely self-interested outlook, sometimes wrapped in ideology, and at other times in the rhetoric of human rights.

How can a civilisation that claims leadership of humanity consider an entity built upon eight decades of genocide, displacement, repression, and the crushing of an entire population a model of democracy?

What values permit overlooking the destruction of cities, the displacement of children, and the bombardment of civilians? Yet the West continues to support the occupation and brands it a partner in “shared values,” while labeling any resistance to occupation as terrorism—even if it is merely the defense of the right to life.

Today, the West reproduces the same logic in Sudan.

Despite the documented crimes committed by the Rapid Support Forces—from killing, rape, looting, and ethnic cleansing that has been witnessed and documented by the militia itself, by international organisations, and by reputable universities, the most recent of which is Yale University, which documented the genocidal crimes perpetrated by the Janjaweed gang following the fall of the city of El Fasher.

This was preceded and followed by genocide against the Masalit tribe on an ethnic basis, and by massacres in the city of Bara and the village of Wad Al-Noura in Al-Gezira State, as well as the bombing of children in the village of Kalogi, and targeting of hospitals, mosques, markets, power and water stations, civilian gatherings, and homes.

After all this, the West hesitates to take a clear moral position, as if the blood of Sudanese civilians does not meet the ethical criteria required for Western empathy.

Some Western powers even go so far as to justify these crimes because they are directed against an army that does not align with their ideological or political priorities, while exerting pressure on the Sudanese government and its army—which is fulfilling its national and constitutional duty to impose security and repel aggression—to cease fire and negotiate with these terrorist killers!

Thus, the moral compass becomes a political ruler that has nothing to do with the justice of the cause.

From this perspective, the refusal of the US Congress to even study the possibility of designating the RSF as a terrorist group, and the failure of any European, Arab, or Islamic state allied with the West—as well as the United Nations and its Security Council—to take even a symbolic step in that direction, represents a natural extension of a long trajectory of moral duplicity governing the behavior of the West, its allies, and its unjust institutions.

Classification is not based on the atrocity of the crime, but on the perpetrator’s position within the map of interests and influence, not on the blood of victims, but on the identity of those who oppose or differ with Western priorities.

For years, the West has labelled any movement associated with what it calls political Islam—or any current opposing hegemony and occupation—as an enemy. Anyone who rejects Western tutelage is deemed a threat to be neutralised.

Even allied regimes follow the same path—sometimes through shameful silence, sometimes through disgraceful complicity, and often through hesitation when speaking the truth carries a cost in the balance of interests.

In this light, the scene becomes clear: the West no longer represents a system of values, but a system of interests governed by harsh pragmatism and repugnant double standards.

The civilisation that sang for decades about human rights and the freedom of peoples can no longer hide its glaring contradictions.

And the world is no longer convinced that the West remains the moral guardian of human values, after witnessing its ethical collapse in Palestine, Sudan, and other places of suffering.

The masks have fallen, along with the false halos that Western powers wrapped around themselves as they declared themselves masters over the peoples of the world.

What is unfolding today is a historical transformation reshaping the consciousness of nations and marking the end of Western unethical guardianship, and the beginning of a new world—one in which all understand that justice cannot be granted by those who lack it, freedom cannot be imported from those who suppress it, and that a civilisation that has lost its moral core has forfeited any right to lead the world, no matter how powerful or arrogant it may be, or how eloquently it speaks in deceit.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=9456