To Perillo.. with No Greeting!

Perfume Has an Exposure

Dr. Muzamil Abu Al-Qasim

Before the American envoy tells us about the differences between Jeddah and Geneva platforms, he should first explain to us why his government closed Jeddah platform in the first place, after it succeeded in making the only breakthrough among all the initiatives that aimed to end the war in Sudan?
What was the reason for transferring the negotiations from Jeddah to Geneva?
Before Perillo talks about the obligation of Jeddah outcomes in the Geneva negotiations; he must first explain why the American government did not work to oblige the Rapid Support Forces RSF rebels to implement Jeddah outcomes throughout the previous period?
As long as he justified his non-visit to Sudan by adhering to the instructions of the US government that obliged him to remain at Port Sudan Airport, he should know first that Sudan also has a government, and that this government is committed to its sovereignty, and is committed to not accepting any condition that affects that sovereignty or violates it or detracts from its value, and therefore it does not accept that the US government bypasses it to address the SAF directly, because the SAF represents one of the institutions of the Sudanese State, particularly since this superior address violates all diplomatic norms and established traditions that govern dealings between countries.
Sudan has a legitimate government, led by the head of an internationally recognized Sovereignty Council TSC as evidenced by his addressing the United Nations General Assembly in that capacity, and therefore it is not acceptable for the US State Department to try to strip General Burhan of that capacity at all.
If the US government was keen on establishing peace in Sudan, as Perillo claims, it would not have closed Jeddah forum, and its Secretary of State would not have tried to issue top-down instructions to Burhan when he asked him (with the utmost impudence) to send his delegation to Jeddah within 48 hours at the end of last May.
The US envoy must explain to us the reasons for the superior treatment his government follows in dealing with Sudan, when it monopolized setting the date of the negotiations, the location of the negotiations, the negotiating parties, the negotiation agenda, the identity of the negotiating participants, and the identity of the negotiation observers, without bothering to consult with the Sudanese government on these important and sensitive issues.
Does this abhorrent, arrogant approach indicate the slightest desire to achieve peace through serious and constructive negotiations?
Does it indicate that the US government is serious in its efforts that it claims aim to establish peace in Sudan?
Does it have the minimum level of respect for the Sudanese government?
Then.. shouldn’t the American government and its envoy who visited all the countries in the region (except the country to which he was sent) explain to the Sudanese people why they chose the United Arab Emirates (UAE)as an observer in the Geneva negotiations?
Perillo knows that Sudan accused the Emirates of supporting the rebels with weapons, military equipment, information and media, and that he went beyond the stage of verbal accusation to submitting a complaint against the Emirates to the UN Security Council (a complaint that Britain and US itself blocked), so how does US want an opponent who is wicked in his hostility and accused by the Sudanese government of participating in the crime of aggression against Sudan to become an observer in the negotiations?
Perillo’s claim that they want to turn the Emirati role from negative to positive is ridiculous and laughable, particularly since the accusations that Sudan has leveled against the Emirates were not made by him alone, but were included in the report of the UN Committee of Experts, and were included in a letter sent by ten members of the US Congress to the Emirati government represented by its Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, and were included in an investigative report published by one of the most important and largest American newspapers… I repeat, American, meaning the New York Times, and were also published on the American CNN station, with witnesses from Perillo’s family and his government, which never intervened to pressure the Emirates to stop supplying the rebels with weapons and escalating the war in Sudan.
Perillo and the US administration know that the armed struggle movements in Darfur were forced to enter the war alongside the army in an effort to protect their social incubators from the brutality of the rebels and the militias allied with them, so why did they ignore their invitation to the Geneva negotiations?
And how do they expect them to abide by the results of negotiations in which they were not involved?
The Sudanese (government) (not just the SAF) will respond to your invitation to negotiate when you respect Sudan’s sovereignty first, and stop issuing instructions from above to the Sudanese government as if it were your subservient follower, who is supposed to obey your orders without discussion.
The response will come when the symbol of Sudan’s sovereignty is treated in its legitimate capacity, with the respect it deserves, and when the US administration stops placing the Sudanese army on the same level as a criminal militia that rebelled against it, killed, starved, displaced, and humiliated millions of Sudanese, looted their property, raped their women, and destroyed their country.
The Sudanese will believe that you are serious in your quest to end the war and are working hard to help them alleviate the calamities and pains of war when they see clear and strict measures taken by you against the countries that are attacking Sudan, fueling the war in Sudan, killing the people of Sudan, and violating Sudan’s sovereignty, and when you stop repeating the abhorrent bastard phrase that the internal agents put in your mouths (the two parties to the conflict), because this war is not taking place between the Sudanese army SAF and the Rapid Support Forces RSF as you claim, but rather it is being waged by rebellious and criminal militias against the entire Sudanese people, and you may know and follow the crimes of ethnic cleansing, war crimes, genocide, rape, sexual violence, and enslavement of women that these militias have committed against millions of Sudanese.
So why didn’t you deal with them as they deserved? What prevented you from classifying them as a terrorist group as long as they committed all the atrocities in the world against civilians in Sudan? The American envoy must answer all these difficult questions, because they are being repeated by all the Sudanese people today, who reject your tyranny, superiority and your continued disregard for the heinous crimes committed against them by the rebel militias.
He must know the important truth that achieving peace requires the presence of serious mediators who meet the conditions of neutrality, good intentions and a firm desire to achieve a just peace that meets the aspirations and desires of the Sudanese people, respects the sovereignty and independence of Sudan and protects the Sudanese from the brutality of the criminal militias..
Have you met and possessed those conditions? The answer is no.. without much effort!