Distracting Attention from the Aggression and Using its Results as a Pretext to Strike!

Dr. Al-Khidr Haroun
We may have overstated for nearly three decades the claim that Sudan is not among the countries the United States deems worthy of its attention, nor included in its national security strategies or vital interests, despite Sudan’s evident wealth and its location on an important waterway through which international trade passes—the Red Sea. Sudan has only become a concern at certain times due to fears that it might pose a threat to those interests. It came into focus when there was concern that it could become a platform for communist infiltration in the past, before communism declined as a governing program, or currently, as a launchpad for Russian or Chinese influence, or a base from which threats could be posed to America’s allies and the West in the region. These strategic allies, crucial for their economic importance or role as military and civilisational monitoring stations, like Israel, are not questioned about their systems of governance or how they treat their citizens—they are free to be however they wish, as long as they remain in those roles.
Regarding Sudan and America today, Donald Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Khartoum from 1993 to 1996, said in his book Inside Sudan that America had never been comfortable with Sudan’s positions since its independence, as Sudan leaned closer to the Eastern bloc. For example, the regime of General Abboud recognised the People’s Republic of China at the height of America’s wars in Vietnam—a full decade before the U.S. itself did. Joseph Brezhnev, the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, visited Sudan in the 1960s, as did Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia and the Prime Minister of Hungary, who in 1970 awarded Sudan ten scholarships to Hungarian universities. For lesser-important countries, the carrot and stick approach is applied, where they are expected to show absolute compliance and not cross set boundaries, or else face a set of pre-prepared justifications for harm—violating international laws, lack of civilian democratic governance, human rights abuses, and the oppression of minorities. These reasons are ready-made to justify humanitarian interventions to prevent famines and stop wars, which, ironically, are often created by those intervening.
There have been unfortunate events in Sudan’s relations with the U.S. that have left some resentment and kept certain wounds open: the assassination of the U.S. ambassador and his deputy by the Palestinian Black September group during a reception at the Saudi embassy in 1973. What is it about September that repeatedly brings pain to America in different places? Someone who prepared a master’s thesis on Sudanese-American relations told me how the tragic incident continues to instil fear and anxiety in the families of American diplomats assigned to the U.S. embassy in Khartoum. Then, the 2008 murder of John Granville, an American aid worker, by extremists in Khartoum further tied Sudan’s name to the deaths of Americans. Though these unfortunate events are rare, they contribute to negative perceptions and create a damaging image of the country, justifying further actions against it.
America approached Sudan twice during the Cold War: first, when Nasserism and the left, including the communist parties aligned with the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc in Eastern Europe, gained influence and launched effective campaigns against the West and American imperialism through the media. In response, President Eisenhower sent his Vice President, Richard Nixon (later president), to Sudan, offering developmental assistance through the Eisenhower Project (later known as aid) to contain communist expansion in the region. The second time was when the Aden Pact was formed, including Somalia under Siad Barre and Ethiopia under Mengistu Haile Mariam. The latter supported the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, led by Colonel John Garang, who initially described his movement as Marxist-Leninist. To contain this communist wave, the U.S. extended a helping hand to Nimeiri, who had turned against the local and global left and aligned himself with the West under American leadership.
When the civil war between the North and South intensified in May 1983, and later when Nimeiri announced the Islamic Sharia laws in September of the same year, attention on southern Sudan increased and became a significant internal concern in the U.S., especially for Christian churches, the Jewish community, African Americans, and liberals opposed to the idea of a religious state. The interest intensified after the formation of the Arab Islamic Popular Conference, and neighbouring countries expressed concerns about the Sudanese government’s behaviour, which they saw as a threat to their security. At that point, America began to pay more attention to Sudan. Thus, a frightening image of Sudan began to form in the American mind.
The main point being made here is that Sudan does not fall within the category of countries deemed of vital interest by the United States. This allows various lobby groups, research centres, organisations, and even certain media outlets that thrive in crisis environments to influence and steer U.S. relations with a country like Sudan, which is considered unimportant.
For further insight, one can refer to an article by Rebecca Hamilton on Reuters, available on their website, where she explains how a small group, active since the 1980s, ultimately succeeded in dividing Sudan. Another reference is the book A Rope from the Sky by Zack Vertin, a senior advisor to a former special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan. In the book, Vertin describes how a young Ethiopian refugee from camps in Djibouti named Ted Dagne, who had no prior knowledge of Sudan, became the primary source of information on Sudan for the U.S. Congress. Henry Hyde, then chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs in the House of Representatives, essentially said, “When it comes to Sudan, the word is Ted’s,” meaning Ted Dagne’s. Dagne had such a close relationship with John Garang, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), that Garang would call him “Uncle,” and Dagne would reply with “Nephew.” Vertin remarked on Dagne’s glaring bias, which was surprising given the non-partisan and neutral stance expected from institutions in the world’s leading democracies. Princeton Lyman, the late U.S. envoy to Sudan, once complained to Vertin that whenever they criticised some of the SPLM’s wrongdoings, they faced backlash from its allies in Washington, which hampered their work.
Furthermore, Susan Rice, who was appointed to the White House in her early 30s and later served in the State Department, boasted in her book Tough Love that she was responsible for most of the sanctions against Sudan—sanctions that led to the grounding of American-made railway engines, Boeing aircraft in Sudan’s air fleet, and Caterpillar tractors. Interestingly, Rice’s doctoral dissertation was not even about East Africa, let alone Sudan, but about UN peacekeepers in Zimbabwe. Does this involvement suggest any real importance for Sudan in the eyes of the world’s leading country?
Former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Timothy Carney and businessman Mansoor Ijaz wrote an article in the Washington Post in 2002, stating that the CIA had ordered the evacuation of the U.S. embassy staff in Khartoum based on intelligence of an impending terrorist attack. The evacuation took place, but it soon became clear that the reports were fabricated, destroying over a hundred files. Yet, despite this realisation, the embassy staff never returned, and the relationship remained hostile. William Anthony Lake, Clinton’s national security advisor, even went into hiding for over a year based on this fabricated information, believing he was targeted for assassination.
Where does this animosity come from? Many Americans have admitted to me that they haven’t sensed any hatred from Sudanese people toward them. In fact, there is a generally positive impression of Americans in Sudan, especially among those who have lived in Sudanese communities.
Turning to the current U.S. envoy, Mr. Tom Perriello, it seems he has followed the path set by previous American officials. Along with the former U.S. ambassador to Sudan, the outgoing Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, and UN Special Envoy Volker Perthes, as well as some neighbouring countries and European states, Perriello started off on the wrong foot by insisting that a small, handpicked group represented the entire Sudanese population and that it alone should form the transitional government. They promoted this confusing narrative to the world, claiming they had replaced military rule with civilian rule, as though authoritarianism is a trait unique to those in military uniforms, and as if the mere wearing of civilian clothes makes one a democrat, regardless of having no mandate.
This misguided approach, which ignored the majority of Sudan’s population and sought to impose a small group upon them, led to the current conflict facing the Sudanese people. Perriello should have corrected the mistake by visiting Sudan and engaging with all its components. Still, instead, he chose to tour neighbouring countries and continued relying on the same small group, thus solidifying the biased views of his predecessors. Imagine a government envoy sent to resolve a country’s problems, yet never visits the country itself. This shows the same disregard for nations that are at the mercy of others.
When his old policy, which led to the war, faced resistance, Perriello began to accumulate threats against Sudan, wielding a heavy stick in bitter frustration over his failures, which will add to his long record of setbacks. He now uses the excuse of a famine that hasn’t yet occurred, though it may if the war—caused by the framework they sought to impose—continues. Instead of advising his government to pressure the UAE to stop supplying the rebels with mercenaries and military equipment or to get Chad to do the same and expel the rebels from Sudanese homes, as per the Jeddah Agreement that the U.S. helped broker, he is exploiting the looming famine to justify further pressure. Isn’t this a shorter path to solving the crisis and ending the war? History will not forgive those who contributed to creating this disaster.
All of this highlights that when it comes to countries that do not hold significant importance to the United States or do not affect its vital interests, bureaucrats, Congress members, their aides, lobbyists, and interest groups can easily meddle in the affairs of these weaker nations. The ruling establishment turns a blind eye as long as there’s no harm to U.S. interests; even if these nations crumble, their foundations collapse, and their people become displaced. None of this matters, and the evidence is clear for all to see.
While it is crucial to analyze and consider the international climate and its susceptibility or lack thereof to executing external conspiracies against Sudan, caution must be exercised in addressing the threats posed by this envoy, who is driven by the bitterness of failure and seeks to harm Sudan as a nation and people. In memory are the successes of others like him who have harmed nations such as Sudan, which, as you know, has no mourners in the entire region.
Confronting this is not done through submission and lowering one’s head, which would only achieve the objectives and aims of the aggression mentioned below. Instead, resistance is the legitimate response permitted by international law for anyone facing aggression, according to the United Nations Charter. This can be pursued through recourse to international courts, regional organisations where Sudan holds membership, and by engaging with the world’s free people. This resistance is more necessary than any previous resistance due to the types of targeting and aggression that Sudan has faced since independence—whether caused by our own poor decisions or crafted by international and regional forces that have benefited and succeeded in weakening us.
The risks being marshalled by the American envoy’s plans, alongside his new alliance that includes countries whose security and survival are inseparable from our own—countries we hope to understand this—are many, the most significant of which are:
• The destruction of the national army, which, regardless of what is said about it or its weaknesses, remains the backbone and shield of the nation. It holds a special place in the hearts of all Sudanese across the vast nation, for they see themselves in it despite the malicious propaganda portraying it as the army of remnants and extremists. Its flaws are our flaws, just as with any army in the world.
• The exploitation of Sudan’s vast, resource-rich lands, essentially a fortress of pure gold, with underground and surface water from rivers and fertile land capable of feeding millions. These lands are being divided among conspirators, and their rightful inhabitants are being deprived, killed, or displaced as is happening today.
• This cannot be achieved without destroying the beating heart that stretches from Wadi Halfa in the south, past the banks of the two Niles, across the plains, hills, and valleys—this area that has been the cradle of civilisations since ancient times, not due to any racial superiority, but because all of Sudan’s ethnicities—Black African, Hamitic, and Arab—have melted together here, forming a broad foundation that continues to spread daily east, west, north, and south. This process of national cohesion must be completed to allow the giant to emerge from its bottle, not to aggress or oppress others, but to spread goodness, justice, and dignity throughout the land. To prevent this, violent killings and displacements have been committed against the people who are the makers of civilisation to replace them with coarse individuals, attracted to superficial things and easily manipulated—a potential tool of modern colonialism in undermining states and seizing their wealth.
You have witnessed martyrs from all corners of Sudan who loved its land and sky, believed in its greatness and potential, and glimpsed from a high hill the outlines of a utopian city that embraces us all in harmony: Osman al-Hawsawi, the sons of the Nuba Mountains, and the steadfast in Zalingei, El Fasher, Nyala, El-Obeid, and Tokar.
• This current threat differs from those before it, as it seems to represent the final chapter, the ultimate goal of previous schemes, having gathered so many plans. The government must rely only on its people, fully inform them of the scale of the conspiracy, and rally its forces—media, diplomacy, and military—as one unified front to confront the aggression. O Sudan! Let every individual, young or old, give their utmost effort and not rest upon dreams of returning to their pasts or their ancestral lands except through this struggle. Victory will come only through pure reliance on God, alongside maximum human effort and ingenuity, sparing no thought, strategy, or resource. This is the ultimate fulfilment of our duty to the nation and to Sudan, a land of civilisations destined for greatness, for humanity needs it.