What Is the Benefit for the United States Not to Go After Sudan?


By Scott Morgan

We have heard that the concept to formally restore relations between the United States and Sudan is a project so vast that it has to be completed in phases.

Phase one was keyed into action by the outgoing Obama Administration just before leaving office in January 2017. It resulted in the conditional granting of sanctions relief which then would have to be certified by the incoming Trump Administration to be permanently lifted. On October 12th of 2017, the Trump Administration did just that much to the chagrin of various Diaspora Groups and Human Rights Advocates.

So, what should the next step entail? The issues and concerns that have been highlighted and documented by various parties have been thrust aside in the name of Diplomacy. So why is Khartoum getting a free pass on these issues? You can assume that currently President Bashir either has friends in very high places or he believes that he has dirt on some people.

We know that several routes thus far traditionally used for trade are being used for nefarious purposes now. Why are the Migrants transiting to Europe complaining of being forced to spend time in buildings to work off some of the costs, as prostitutes for the Sudanese Military? Even better, is why is the West turning a blind eye towards Khartoum when it comes to allegation of the slave trade?

Several Christian Churches have been listed for destruction by the Government. After these buildings are destroyed they are then replaced either by Mosques or by Bazaars. These abuses have been documented both by NGOs (tracking these abuses) and even by agencies of the United States Government itself. However, it seems that the Rights of these People which are guaranteed by International Law are being ignored to further an agenda to restore Sudan to the Community of Nations. After all, we are seeing in various places how Christians are having their rights eroded.

South Sudan is another area where the International Community looks the other way when it comes to the actions of Khartoum. On more than one occasion it has been documented that the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) has sent truckloads of weapons across the border to support one renegade General after another with the agenda of removing Salva Kiir from office. This action was needed after Riek Machar was removed from the scene. The actions of Khartoum cannot be ignored any longer. Bashir wants the return of the Oil Revenue - plain and simple - by any and all means necessary.

It should be noted that South Sudan is not the only location where Sudan has had a negative influence in recent years. The country was accused of shipping weapons to Syria through the Libyan port city of Benghazi. Iranian weapon shipments to Hamas entered Africa (through Port Sudan) and then transited through Egypt to reach their destination: the Gaza Strip. There was a Sudanese Element in Seleka as well as they overthrew the Government of the Central African Republic, back in 2013, and created that state of anarchy that persists to this very day.

There is an adage that states better the devil that you know instead of the one that you don’t. It appears that in Khartoum Bashir changes ministers to placate one group or financial backer to keep the cash flow active and the ICC away.

With these actions listed above one has to ask what benefit is it to the United States to keep him in power? On the surface there isn’t one. Therefore, in an effort to please some of the Arab States these actions are taking place. After all there are Sudanese Troops on the ground in Yemen assisting in that debacle.

The only conclusion is, yet again, the State Department is being conned. When will they wake up?

(Image: Banner[Ed] - Google Images)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society. © 2007-2018 Author(s) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED]

Comments

  1. Hi Morgan,

    My only answer to your questions is: it interests the West to use Sudan to advance their agenda in the ME.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looking at Sudan, any deployment there, one would be surrounded by all sides much like within a siege. Aside from Petroleum (one of Sudan's largest natural resources) there is little to gain in creating a bigger footprint than what they already have. Sometimes, things have to be left to be.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers