In the Political Diplomatic Theater of War
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Bashir Osman
There is not a single war in history, of the size of the current war in Sudan, that does not take place on two theaters..
A temporary military combat theater, long or short.
And a political-economic-values theater.. longer-lived, deeper and more lasting in the lives of peoples.. This is what for its strategic goals armies are mobilized and wars are waged. Clasz was right when he said: “War is the continuation of politics by other means”
It should not be forgotten for a moment that a more intense battle, on the political-diplomatic level, requires us to fight it just as we fight it on the operational field.
Just as the enemy mobilized before April 15, 2023, the maximum war supplies it could against the Sudanese people and their army: soldiers and mercenaries… and training, financing and weapons… and international and regional diplomatic support, and by buying the conscience of everyone who had the ability to sell his conscience, it is also mobilizing today, with the same tools and method, the positions of countries, leaders and organizations on the regional and international levels, in order to deprive Sudan of achieving a sweeping victory, through which its pure national will is liberated and its independence and sovereignty over its land are achieved.
Today, the enemy is mobilizing all the requirements of the circumstantial adaptation by which he achieves what he could not seize – to achieve his strategic goals – by force of arms.
The highest strategic goal of the Quad Alliance that waged war on Sudan has been clearly revealed by the daily events of the conflict itself, in word and deed, which is to end the state of Sudan and remove it from the world map, after eliminating its army, and transferring its inheritance – in varying amounts – to the four alliance blocs.
The alliance that engaged in the war on Sudan consists of four blocs, supportive and coordinated, with the highest degrees of mutual dependence, each of which has its own role drawn according to the circumstantial availability in its space of movement, but the ultimate strategic goal is one.. which is to dismantle Sudan, starting with dismantling its army.
The first bloc: An international coalition led by Britain, America, France, Israel and the United Arab Emirates UAE It is as if the partners of this bloc entrusted the Emirates – or it was voluntarily on its part – to assume the tasks of control, direction and leadership, including the financial and logistical costs and all other requirements of coordination and leadership.
In the capitals of this bloc, the project to dismantle Sudan was designed for years, since it was a “raw” theory that was being studied behind closed doors in its intelligence agencies and in its strategic thought centers, waiting for the conditions to mature that would make the implementation of the project possible.
These conditions were repeated and then integrated by creating the movement that ended the rule of the Salvation. With the demise of the Salvation, the biggest obstacle to the project to dismantle Sudan was removed.
People saw how the ambassadors of this bloc led that movement (with overwhelming bullying). This practice completely violated Sudan’s sovereignty, in a behavior that the annals of world diplomatic history have not recorded anything like it.
Contemporary international relations have not known a function whose practice has been regulated by a highly precise and detailed legal system as the function of diplomatic representation. Since Vienna Conference of 1815, when the idea of resident diplomatic representation emerged, through all the twists and turns of relations between states – over the centuries – to the United Nations Charter, and ending with Vienna Convention of 1961, which precisely details what must be adhered to in the practice of diplomatic representation. Then the Vienna Convention of 1963, which regulates consular relations in the same manner. These are the instruments of international law governing diplomatic representation.
However, the ambassadors of this bloc have continued to violate the country and its sovereignty. The members of the third bloc in this alliance (as we will show below) were employees under the management of this first bloc. It is the one that paid, and continues to pay, their salaries and the costs of their movements. It is the one that made the country’s internal and external policy in the years of Hamdok and the Forces for Freedom and Change, and it is the one to which their performance reports are submitted.
In January 2020, this bloc even secretly addressed the UN Secretary-General (in Hamdok’s name) to establish a political mission to fully administer Sudan in all its administrative branches. In doing so, it sought, with cunning disguise, to liquidate the country’s independence and effectively place it under international mandate.
That was the State of “unlucky slavery” provided by the great coma of the age in late 2018 and beyond. Opportunities were created from which the temptations of the foreigner lurking to colonize Sudan were born…
“Unlucky slavery” (on this occasion) is a term coined by the scholar Abdul Rahman Al-Kawakibi when he was writing his book entitled “The Nature of Tyranny and the Downfall of Slavery”, and he means by it the dominance and exploitation of foreign powers watching for the deteriorating state of weakness in a state that God’s will has decreed should slip into the abyss of nihilistic maze. This bloc – originally watching Sudan – seized the state of coma at that time, and took control of the country’s direction.
The second bloc:
A regional alliance of Chad, some notables of the Sahel countries, Central Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Libya Haftar, and South Sudan… then leading elements in regional organizations (the African Union and IGAD). A lot of political money was pumped into the elements of this bloc, taking various forms, until news of bribes made Africans sick to their stomachs in a way that history has never recorded.
The purpose of this bloc is to provide regional and continental support, which its ally, the first bloc, developed – when it succeeded in seizing the country and destroying its army – into international support that supports and recognizes the results of their aspirations in the project of dismantling Sudan.
The third bloc:
The two blocs – the international and the continental – created an internal Sudanese functional alliance, choosing for its elements entities, parties and individuals to ostensibly assume the leadership of the country based on their aspirations to destroy the Sudanese army SAF and kill its Commandment , as their plans were proceeding in mid-April 2023.
Their wildest hopes were that the matter would be fleeting in a few hours or a few days. And that was the date that witnessed the birth of a new state, with its establishment they would effectively remove from the world map a country called Sudan as it knows itself, and as the world knows it.
They prepared the regional and international arenas to receive and recognize this forbidden fall.
The approach designed to achieve that strategic goal is the same approach that the parties of the first bloc themselves tried – eight decades ago – in Palestine, when Britain and its allies enabled the Zionist gangs to take over the land of Palestine. Put the Rapid Support RSF Militia today in place of the Zionist gangs, Haganah and the Irgun in the 1940s, and put Hemeti and his brother in place of Shamir and Menachem Begin, and you will see before your eyes the identical behavior and field performance of the Zionist gangs in Palestine and Janjaweed militia gangs in Sudan, and in both cases you will see the exact identical approach without the slightest exaggeration or exaggeration.
What they have prepared for Sudan is the reproduction of the old tried and tested Zionist approach (colonialism – settlement – eradication – replacement).
The fourth bloc: The Rapid Support RSF .It is entrusted – with the support of the three allied blocs – with implementing the strategic goal on the ground: dismantling the Sudanese army SAF after killing its leadership, and that is the necessary introduction to dismantling the entire country.
They instructed the leadership of the Rapid Support Forces RSF ,under their overwhelming sense of military and financial power, and reinforced this with solemn promises, that their takeover of the country would receive support from the entire world, including recognition from America, Europe, Israel, and Arab countries, led by the Emirates, in addition to what has become guaranteed for them, the support and backing of the African Union, IGAD, and the affiliates of the first bloc in Africa.
They extended to Hemeti and his partners and family, who are the exclusive owners of the Rapid Support Forces RSF desires that had never crossed the heart of any of them.
Wild desires for the establishment of a rich and powerful kingdom on the ruins of a country called Sudan!!
As for Hemeti himself, they lavished a promise on him that they planted in his ears and eyes.
A promise of the tree of immortality and a kingdom that will never perish!! What the blocs of this alliance whispered in the mind of Hemeti and his clan is nothing like what Satan whispered in the ears of Adam and Eve when he expelled them from Paradise, and arrogantly led them to taste the tree of satanic desires until today the disgrace of the great lie appeared to them. It is as if those who planted in his being the desires of the great king, are chanting today with those who said:
As long as you, the most foolish of kings, are our friend, then we have an investment in your good stupidity!!
I wanted from the above to place the forces involved in the war of the Sudanese people and their army in the molds of their mutually supportive affiliations. This – as I appreciate – is the case with every methodological treatment whose logical sequence leads to the extraction of conclusions based on clear facts that walk on the ground.
We all,commandment and people, must reflect thoughtfully on the following reporting questions, which were built on the data of the methodological description above. If we achieve the detachment from the brakes, hooks and obscuration of the ego, whether that ego is the luck of the soul, a sect, a party, a tribe or any partial entity.. If we achieve that, then what is generated from the conclusions of these questions will seem logical axioms.
The first of these questions is: Who is the enemy of the people of Sudan who kills them, drives them out of their homes, plunders what they own and destroys their institutions that they have built over seventy years with great difficulty. And who violates their honor and sells their women as captives in the slave trades of Africa in the twenty-first century..
The clear answer that has become clear to every person of sight and insight is that the enemy of Sudan is the one who created an international and regional crowd that made from its entities this ominous quadruple alliance to end the existence of Sudan, and began by destroying its army..
The structures of this alliance with its four blocs are waging war on the people of Sudan in solidarity, integration and harmony. Each of the components of this alliance has a role that suits its situation. Some of them took on the financing and arming, some took on the mobilization of mercenaries and directly carried out the killing, looting, destruction and rape, some took on the political and diplomatic support at the regional and international levels, some took on the internal political alignment and the tasks of intelligence and the work of guides who guide the killers to their victims and those who take on the management of the propaganda and psychological war. Has this aggressive formation left the people of Sudan with a veil that distracts them from seeing its allied and supportive components? Is there anyone who is still ignorant of the harmonious roles carried out by each of its components, within its grand strategy? Is there any sane person who can place any of the components of this diabolical alliance in the position of an honest and neutral mediator, as America and the Emirates are seeking today!? While Britain is obstructing Sudan’s grievance before the Security Council, aiming to condemn its ally, the Emirates, for criminal complicity in war crimes?
The second question is: What are the strategic goals for which the ominous alliance was formed and for which the wheel of this war turned with all that has become a witness of killing, dragging, destruction and blood?
The answer is: The strategic goal is the complete seizure of the country… on land devoid of its inhabitants… in the largest colonial-settlement-
An experiment based on two legs: dismantling… and reassembling… or replacement… then replacement. Stripping the population of their land through all forms of material and moral oppression… and replacing them with others… deep demographic cultivation, then planting a new human being.
The colonial history of the components of the first bloc in this alliance is full of a dense stock of replacement and substitution experiments, as happened to the Indians in America.
And as the parties of this alliance did to the people of Palestine, and as happened to the indigenous people of Australia, and as happened to the people of South Africa, and to the indigenous people of the Caribbean, etc., settler colonialism has been linked in all its experiences to the principle of substitution and replacement. And it has never failed to use two tools to achieve this goal in every country it has visited: the tool of total elimination, or the tool of genocide when that is necessary to achieve complete replacement. The third question arising from these abstract facts is: Do the actions of the Rapid Support Forces RSF in every population center it has attacked have a characteristic less than elimination and the violation of everything (home, money, possessions, and honor)? Or is it less than the characteristic of genocide? The answer is abundantly available and witnessed by the entire world except for the four blocs of this alliance. Ask the people in Geneina, Ardmata, Wad al-Nura, al-Shorfa, al-Rahad, and Umm Samima about it. Rather, ask every house in every village or city where Janjaweed have settled, with the support and solidarity of their allies from the evil Quadruple Alliance blocs. Do we see from the context of the conflict and its daily life a departure from the strategic goals of the alliance, to achieve which the alliance blocs have exhausted all their efforts? Dozens of objective questions are multiplying to confirm a fact that some often tend to ignore its central significance in the current war.. the truth of the united and coordinated action of the components of the alliance that is leading the war on the Sudanese people and its armed forces SAF.
The first bloc in the evil alliance is the locomotive that pulls the other three behind it. It is the one that initiates alternatives to the conflict according to the contextual facts produced by the daily interactions of war. If the evidence of their loss of the battle seems likely, it goes to open another channel from its political, diplomatic, and other reserves. Just as it mobilized supporters for the war in Africa (countries and organizations), it mobilizes supporters for its contextual alternative from the same sources. And while it does all the tricks of coercive diplomacy, which it has become accustomed to doing steadily since the end of bipolarity, its goals remain fixed, awaiting favorable contextual facts to resume its march toward the strategic goal.. the goal of dismantling and then reassembling. Or perhaps more clearly; The goal of eradication, then replacement and substitution…and reproducing the old settler colonialism with its characteristics that we mentioned…
And from the stocks of the experiences of the first bloc in managing its strategic conflict with us, during the past forty years, America – in solidarity and loud coordination with its counterparts in the Quad Alliance – extracted the idea of the Geneva talks.
Since the early nineties of the last century, when the United States was alone in extending its influence over the world, following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the approach to bilateral dealings with Sudan has not changed much. The distinctive title of its relationship with us has remained the works of coercive diplomacy based on the assumption of the effectiveness of its four pillars: 1/ Continuous, recurring demands, or – more precisely – issuing orders… 2/ The necessity of submitting to those orders… 3/ Waving sanctions… 4/ Promises (that were never fulfilled) if the demands and orders were submitted to. These are the tools of American coercive diplomacy towards Sudan over four decades.
When Sudan avoided an unequal confrontation with America in the past, it was keen to establish its relations with it (and with the whole world) without compromising its sovereignty and independence. And to cooperate in the common humanity, and to respect the cultural, societal and religious particularities of each nation. However, the tendencies of hegemony – under the feelings of power – are what overwhelmed the requirements of peaceful coexistence, cooperation and the adoption of healthy relations between nations.. until the saying became popular who said what is good for the West should be good for the rest.. that is, what the West sees as good, others should see as good.
The accumulated lessons of our relationship with America in our recent past are still fresh in the memory of Sudanese diplomats.
Shortly after John Garang returned from America after completing his doctoral studies at the University of Iowa, in 1983, he led the rebellion of the People’s Liberation Movement, with multi-faceted American support. President Nimeiri’s complete bias towards American policy at the time did not help its ally Garang to stop his rebellion. The goals of the popular movement at that time were America’s strategic goals, so it should not abandon a confirmed strategic ally for the sake of a temporary functional friend. Nimeiri went, and Suwar al-Dahab came, then al-Sadig…and America’s support and that of its allies for the popular movement expanded in a continuous upward trend.
Then came the rescue to save Sudan from falling into the hell of the extermination project (so similar to what is happening now: read the two rivals of the SPLM in 1983) for the SPLM, and it is certainly aware of the facts of America’s political and logistical support for it. In 1996, the SPLM no longer controlled any position it had occupied before that date. Here, the pace of American coercive diplomacy intensified to save Garang’s army. For that, it designed what was known as the “lifeline”, which is the supply line of supplies and military equipment that continued to feed the SPLM for the following ten years. It is a familiar approach to coercive diplomacy that America seeks to reproduce today in Geneva. For more than twenty years, America and the Troika were generous supporters of the SPLM with all the requirements of the conflict against Sudan. Over the course of twenty years, dozens of calls from successive Sudanese governments for a ceasefire and a move towards a just settlement were shattered. These calls were shattered under pressure from America and its allies on the popular movement to reject the settlement with the government of Sudan. Then the pumping of Sudanese oil in August 1999. Its positive effects on life as a whole began to appear, as it was positive on the arming and supplying of the armed forces. Only at this stage did the accelerating shift on.
