Perriello is not smarter than Madeleine Albright
Zain Al-Abidin Saleh Abdul-Rahman
In the 1990s, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with opposition leaders in Kampala and told them that Washington had decided to topple the Salvation regime. She stated clearly that Washington had allocated twenty million dollars to support Sudan’s neighboring countries that cooperated with Washington to overthrow the regime. Strangely, Museveni was committed to playing the dirty role against Sudan throughout his rule. The opposition was then given ten million dollars to prepare for the operation of removing the regime. The opposition celebrated and rejoiced. The strange thing is that the opposition parties never explained to their members what they did with those millions. It was later discovered that the money was placed in a bank with a monthly interest rate of 14%, and the interest went to those entrusted with the money, who later became businessmen. Clinton and his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, failed to topple the regime, but they managed to bomb the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory owned by Salah Idris. Ultimately, the regime fell through peaceful youth protests without millions of dollars being spent on them, nor did neighboring countries help them.
Madeleine was very outspoken, despite her time being before the era of social media. Now, U.S. Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello has emerged, still being tested in his job, and could lose it if the U.S. administration changes with one of the competitors. This person, since becoming the envoy to Sudan, has been careful not to upset anyone who has placed their hopes on him, and he doesn’t offend any media outlet. He can talk for 24 hours a day without stopping for a minute, yet all his statements lack effectiveness. Perhaps he tries to please some, but he will lose in front of Sudanese public opinion, which believes in the saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” Those who speak a lot and make statements here and there without real impact can only be effective in statements. He himself knows that his role is limited to those statements he makes on X. The U.S. administration may be too busy with more important issues than Sudan. This was evident in the debate between Kamala and Trump, where Sudan wasn’t even mentioned as a courtesy. Therefore, the administration asked Perriello to fill the space with statements, hoping that those who chase after the U.S. would be reassured by Perriello’s words. The U.S. administrations believe that this region loves slogans and chanting, so they send someone who can outtalk them with statements and even slogans.
Perriello said on his X platform, “He and the U.S. administration stand with the Sudanese people in their steadfast demand for democracy led by civilians.” Who told Perriello that the people are against democracy? Wasn’t the revolution for democracy? But I don’t think America wants democracy either. The proof is that it supports most of the countries in the region that have nothing to do with democracy. America’s negative stance on the third democracy is what caused its downfall. America seeks its interests at any cost, and democracy is just a gateway to establishing a foothold. If it weren’t for the weakness of the transitional authority, which allowed embassies to interfere in Sudan’s political affairs, when the military tried to impose its conditions after the regime fell and broke up the sit-in, millions took to the streets to show that they are a force that cannot be ignored. The question for the civilians who were in power is: why did they abandon the streets for the sake of power? Democracy is a popular demand for which they paid the price in the streets. But the elites, nurtured by America to pass its interests, are the ones who toppled democracy by creating a wide gap between themselves and the streets, losing trust in the process.
Perriello, I asked you this directly in a previous article: who is controlling whom? Is it America that uses the UAE as a tool to implement its plans, or is the UAE using America? Mr. Perriello, please deal with an open book: What does America want from Sudan? Leave the issue of democracy, which you use to distract people, aside and clarify what America’s agenda in Sudan really is.
Perriello says, “We will stand against the advocates of war and its continuation in Sudan.” Who are these advocates of war? Wouldn’t it be better for you to come to Sudan and meet the people enduring these hardships so that you can learn the truth from them and understand why the popular resistance took up arms? Democracy in Sudan will be established by these people, whether America accepts it or not, because they alone have come to understand its value and the meaning of homeland. War has given them a new awareness. When the UAE wanted to settle mercenaries in their land, right before the eyes of the U.S. administration, not the American people… The experience of the transitional period confirmed that once the war ends, elections should follow immediately. Then America, the European Union, and the observers America chooses can monitor the elections and safeguard the ballot boxes, and whoever the people choose will govern and implement their program. But a civilian authority without elections will only lead us to reproduce the crisis once again.
Listen to us once, Perriello, and we will stand by you and recommend to the new administration that you continue your mission. If you are seeking democracy, then after the war ends, hold general elections so that the people can freely choose the leadership they want. But the experience of the “Framework Agreement” and the attempts to cloud people’s awareness by raising leaders without elections is unacceptable and rejected. You are not smarter than Madeleine Albright, who spent huge sums of money without achieving what she wanted, and you exceed her in countless statements. Please, focus on the issue of general elections, and you will find that everyone has rallied around you, and you will see with your own eyes millions standing by your side. May God grant success.
