Foreign Financing as a Viewpoint

Al-Obaid – Qurashi Awad

The information released by Ustaza/ Rasha Awad the spokesperson of (Taqaddum) to the Al-Jazeera Channel, days ago, that they received financing from international organizations, mentioned in name, provoked widespread reactions among the public opinion.
The points of view, on the subject, varied the matter that necessitates dealing with it as a viewpoint.
It is known that there are international civil society organizations the work on addressing the societal impacts resulting from that has not fulfilled its duties in the social field, which is the same role played by the UN organizations . However, there are organizations that work in the field of amending the policies in the upstream instead of pursuing them in the downstream through pressure, motivation, explanation and presenting alternative policies. All that takes place by the approval of the respective state, moreover, supervised by it and under the control of the Voluntary Work Commission.
Such organizations, no embarrassment shall result in dealing with them because they are enrolled within the framework of cooperation among nations, as they are owned by social categories in their countries or across the world.
However, there are organizations, which work on pushing political actors to adopt a certain political approach. The problem is that their ownership belongs to parties and governments. Such type is the controversial one. There are political factors who do not mind to accept the political orientations of these organizations, parties and the countries which do not own them and they do not consider that betrayal to their homelands or their people, because the political and economic approach that they promise with, in spite of the fact that it comes within external policies of specific countries, it is the best one for developing a specific community. Therefore, they accept the foreign financing and they do not put into consideration for the accusation of agency, which they consider as settling of scores with them. Such view point is liable for dialogue and discussion.
The organizations that support (Taqaddum) as mentioned by Ustaza/ Rasha is known for their relations with western and American governments and parties. Therefore, they must not deal with sensitiveness being described as adopting external policies of some countries towards Sudan, and that the political ideas that they adopt are not their own ideas, but ideas kept on being presented on the international platforms and form prescriptions for political solutions tested in many countries but did not achieve positive results.
The crisis of this international vision does not emerge from the communities which are injected by it and does not recognize the conflict on equal footing and assemble them in one side to achieve democratic transfer it calls it now , although the ruling alliance according to the proposal include criminals convicted with judicial verdicts, as in the case of Khalifa Haftar in Libya and Saif El Islam Al-Gaddfi, that matter that cause fear of the project of the security committee elements return to the political scene according to the methods of the international forces thinking, which finance (Taqaddum).
When increases worry is that (Taqaddum) did not present a political vision for the transfer based on reviewing the experience of the past, but only called for the parties to the conflict to stop war and initiate a political process for transfer. This statement raises reasonable doubt that it will return the framework agreement, which was a product of blood partnership according to the Constitutional Document. Both were by international motivation and encouragement by the same countries owning the organizations, which are now financing (Taqaddum).
All these indicators state that (Taqaddum) which is composed of the group of the former prime minister and FFC and national personalities known for convergence with the transitional period, have nothing new that can be added to the political orientations which broad popular sectors opposed them when they were under execution, and that reapplying them will be against the will of the Sudanese people, even though it responds to the recommendations of the international financing institutions which offer financing to some political actors.
This is what we disagree with in the relation with the international organizations that belong to some counties and parties that exchange power in them. I don’t think our difference bears criminalization of betrayal against them if those who establish such relations consider it as natural and present them with transparency and clarity.
Our difference is not a bare one, but we think there is a way better than this for to exit from the economic and political crisis, which has severe grip round the neck of the country and dragged it into the current catastrophe.
This way starts from the progress of the political role and keeping away the experts until their role comes for forming a popular political front where self-dependence economic remedies are branched and it is not necessary to boycott the international community, instead to seek cooperation with it in the fields that achieve common interests for our people and all the peoples of the world, as they have not drawn up the policies that we must follow, provided that they provide support and finance. This orientation may need a separate article.