Reading Details of Sudan’s War (2-3)

By: Ibrahim Al-Bashir Al-Kabbashi

In the world today, dozens of countries believe in the principle of justice and common
interests, and they are harmed – as we are – by the inclinations of those who see international cooperation as nothing more than an approach that falters between two options: a confirmed enemy or a temporary friend. This is the realistic description of international relations that is reflected in the vision of the West, under its sense of hegemony, following the collapse of the balance of power that was represented by bipolarity.
In our search for an explanation for these constraints that have placed Sudanese diplomacy in what resembles house arrest, we would like to initially realize the distinction between two things: the first: foreign policy making. The second: implementing this policy. The following industry is undertaken by the relevant state agencies, led by the presidency and its auxiliary arms, which should not be separated (under any foreign influences or pressures) from the goals of armed popular mobilization in the face of what the aggression, with its various arms, committed against the country and its people. The leadership does not need a magnifying glass to reveal to us and to it the size of the enemy and its motives, nor do you need evidence to determine who the aggressor is, and who are involved in the camp loyal to him? Who is the friend and how do we strengthen our friendship with him to achieve our victory and sovereignty over our land?
When we clearly articulate these axioms without distorting them, foreign policy goals are designed. Only here is the diplomatic executive tool put on its intended path to achieve the goals of this policy.
In the context of this, and even before and after it, the leaders must confirm what I think they realize, which is that the most important tool for achieving liberation and national independence is the “fusion” fusion between the country’s army and its broad armed popular support with all support factors… combat and logistical support as well as politically and morally support the equation that those lurking among us know nothing else says: “Internally you are strong… externally you are feared.” We thought well of the leaders that such intuitions would be well established in them. There is not a single national liberation movement in history without this being the path that achieves its victory.
In recent decades, the West (America and Europe) have absorbed the doctrinal products of modern liberalism, and behavioral control guided by sacred text no longer has a place among them. Rather, some of them have begun to call loudly for the creation of a hybrid organism consisting of a technical element with a human element, an approach that Western organizations have continued to promote with a loud call for atheism, describing it as a post-humanist stage.
This exaggeration resulted from the disintegration of Western societies from any constant values, beliefs, or certainty. Due to their intense absorption of extremist liberal values, they do not want these deeply degraded concepts to be limited to their societies, but rather they always make them an agenda that is dictated to the non-Western world, especially the Islamic world.. Muslims believe in their Qur’an, which says: “You have your religion and I have mine.” However, most of the leaders of the contemporary West say in their address to Muslims: “You have my religion…and I have my religion.” Accordingly, international organizations are employed to dictate what they want.
Yes…it is not in Sudan’s interest to antagonize America or anyone else…and our diplomacy has often stated clearly in dialogue sessions with America and Europe that we strengthen the shared human common, but we do not give up our certainty, doctrinal and cultural specificities. While their statement, expressed in the halls of collective and bilateral diplomacy, remains that they have no place for the ideological and cultural peculiarities of peoples. What is good for the west should be good for the rest!!
This was the essence of most of the agenda on the tables of the talks with America and some European countries. Rather, these are the West’s propositions with many countries with deep-rooted cultural inheritances, especially those that honor the innate constants of religion, family, international diversity, and the qualitative distinction of man and creatures between male and female. Until this abnormal liberal tendency became a regular item in the portfolios of Western diplomacy, which it always seeks to impose on humanity. That is why today we are witnessing collective blocs of many free peoples with deep-rooted civilizational roots in confronting what the West seeks to impose on the world.
The term secularism is fraught with negative connotations in the collective conscience of Muslims. The secular state that the West and its allies seek to impose is impossible to achieve in a society like ours. It has always remained a coercive top-down path, not a democratic option. When it was adopted in societies similar to ours, the means of imposing it was always internal military oppression and external colonial dictates. There is nothing more evidence of what I am saying than the attempt by FFC groups and their public instigators (the ambassadors of the West and the Emirates) to impose what they called the framework agreement, warning the army and people of Sudan of two options: either the framework or war. When they became certain of the impossibility of imposing the framework, war was their alternative option to achieve what they had despaired of achieving. The framework was a blatant departure from the country’s sovereignty, hijacking its destiny, and instilling an objective justification for its dismantling. Thus, it was the founding event of our current reality.
Today, most of the non-Western world agrees with those who say: “The future belongs to the sacred, not to the permissible, to the absolute, not to the relative, and to good traditions, not to superficial modernity (which they are constantly trying to impose on the world) has a horizon of nothingness, and this is the deeper problem hidden behind all International policies woven by contemporary liberal globalization.” This is a quote from what Russian professor Alexander Dugin said in what he called the “fourth political theory,” distinguishing it from Marxism, fascism, and liberalism. Its theses revolve around the alternative intellectual container for Western hegemony, not only on Russia, but it contains implications for national liberation that suit the entire non-Western world.
Many thought that humanity had recovered from the horrors of ancient wars. Others also thought that the era of traditional colonialism, with its war machine and direct occupation, had ended without return. There is a group of people still immersed in an delusional idealism that believes with certainty that public international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the four Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions regulating diplomatic relations, and the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly concerned with decolonization and affiliation with international organizations and regionalism… they thought that this momentum alone, in the form of charters and organizations, had guaranteed the peoples the freedom to be freed from the atrocities of foreign occupation… whether it was occupation by direct, clear-headedness, as in the first version of colonialism in the past centuries, or by proxy colonialism, whose means were bribery and the mobilization of mercenaries. And the creation of agents, and the mouthpieces of black propaganda, as in the version that is before us today..
The current Sudan war has revealed with clear evidence that the independence of the peoples and the extension of their sovereignty over their lands is a sacred goal that can only be achieved by the peoples themselves, through the solid alignment of their comprehensive living forces.
I do not know the characteristics of the restrictions that produced what resembles the withdrawal of Sudanese diplomacy today from the regional and global stage, in the corridors of which plots to invade Sudan are being made. Not
addressing the obvious defect on the diplomatic front is not less than the duties of military supply on the direct combat fronts. Our battle is the same on both the internal and external arenas.
Third: The masses of the people organized to mobilize their forces in order to defend their honor, and the country’s existence and independence..  Completing this compact mass structure requires an organization that produces a leadership from within that is responsible for planning, organizing and coordinating its movement towards the higher goals of national liberation. Deep understanding, precise organization, and grassroots popular cohesion are the only path towards liberation from the dictates of the outside that lurks behind us: people, land, values, and resources. It is also an opportunity to liberate the popular will in grassroots society from the super-hegemony of authoritarian entities, especially those that arose by order, will, financing and sponsorship from abroad to serve its interim and strategic goals that were previously mentioned.
All revolutionary experiences in the world were based on the awakening of the grassroots collective consciousness, which deeply absorbed the lessons of the injustice that befell the people, and realized that achieving the goals of liberation requires a united, mutually supportive path of struggle. In order to achieve this unity, a contractual charter should be designed that clearly states the great goal of the Sudanese national liberation movement, from the lowest population center; In a desert, village, neighborhood, or city, upwards until the People’s National Liberation Parliament is established.
When the people of Sudan conclude the formulation of this national charter (and I think they have achieved it), they will need to distinguish in their political movement between the fixed – principled – strategic on the one hand, and the programmatic variables on the other hand with the necessity of instilling extreme sensitivity in control, oversight and accountability.
All national liberation movements in contemporary history have been organized into a tight, systematic system that escalates from geographical bases, where the societal presence has the inherent jurisdiction in every matter.