The Statement of the EU’s Fools: A Reading of Diplomatic Decline

As I See 

By Adel Al-Baz

1

At the outset, let me say two things:

First: The most important outcome of President al-Burhan’s meeting with the European Union is the photograph published alongside this article. Everything else is empty talk. That photograph alone confirms the European Union’s recognition of the government led by the army and its commander.

Second: By the word “fools,” I mean a lack of sound judgment, as referenced in the Qur’anic verse: “And who would turn away from the religion of Abraham except one who makes a fool of himself?” It became clear to me, upon reading the statement they issued yesterday, that they are indeed fools in the sense I have explained—not in the colloquial Sudanese sense of the term (so that no one misunderstands).

2

The statement begins with an embarrassing falsehood when it says: “The Heads of Mission came to listen and gain a deeper understanding of the situation in Sudan.”

What exactly do they wish to understand more deeply after three years of war—a war whose battlefields they fled from the moment the first shot was fired?

It is a war in whose outbreak they played a significant role, when they decided to isolate all political forces and selected only their preferred allies to craft a framework agreement that would bring them to power. The message then became: “Either the Framework Agreement or war.” The war, therefore, was of their own making.

Those who helped ignite the war surely know who started it and why.

Furthermore, since the war began, three conferences have been held in Europe (Geneva, London, and Berlin), discussing every aspect of the conflict. European research centers have provided all the information anyone seeking understanding could need. European newspapers have also covered everything that has occurred during the war—genocide, massacres, displacement, looting, rape, and refugee crises. In short, all the information is available.

These fools know the facts, but they pretend not to understand them for reasons they know very well. Thus, the statement begins with a lie.

3

The statement consists of sixteen points. Nine are little more than generic diplomatic rhetoric, while the remaining seven paragraphs are embarrassing and couched in vague, passive language, as we shall see.

One paragraph states: “The horrific massacres and flagrant violations of the most basic human rights committed against civilians, particularly in El Fasher and Al Jazirah State, must not be repeated.”

Who, exactly, committed these horrific massacres and violations, especially in El Fasher? Why do they not name the perpetrator, whom they know perfectly well? Because their interests with the sponsors of those criminals prevent them from speaking the truth.

There is not a single word of condemnation directed at those responsible for the massacres in Nyala, later repeated in Al Jazirah, and indeed throughout every area tainted by their actions.

4

In another paragraph, the statement says: “The humanitarian siege imposed on civilians and cities must be ended immediately.”

Who is currently besieging civilians in towns and villages? They know, of course. Why, then, do they not address the responsible party by name?

Without the slightest embarrassment, the European Heads of Mission also stressed the importance of preserving Sudan’s unity, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.

Imagine that these same EU members participated just two weeks ago in Addis Ababa in a meeting connected to “Ta’sis” (Foundation), a body currently working toward establishing a state in Darfur. How, then, can they claim to be concerned about Sudan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity?

Even more strangely, the statement condemns “efforts to establish parallel governance structures in the country,” while simultaneously encouraging and effectively recognizing those who are creating such structures. At the same time, they only verbally criticize those attempting to preserve Sudan’s unity.

Who could possibly be deceived by such a dark and misleading drama?

5

Another paragraph calls for the establishment of “safe zones and humanitarian corridors.”

To whom is this appeal directed? To what address is it being sent? To no one in particular.

In any case, the areas under army control are safe and do not require humanitarian corridors. What is truly remarkable is that they demand humanitarian corridors while failing to fulfill the financial commitments they themselves pledged at every conference held in their capitals.

Finally, the statement concludes by rejecting external support that fuels the conflict and criticizing the illegal flow of weapons and foreign mercenaries, warning that such actions will prolong the conflict in Sudan.

Naturally, these fools either do not know—or pretend not to know—who provides that external support, who supplies the militia with weapons, and who recruits foreign mercenaries. Therefore, they refrain from identifying them.

What is required of them now is simply to leave us alone so that we may heal our wounds ourselves, far from their conferences, recommendations, and conspiracies.

We have no need for their conditional assistance. It is enough that they clear our skies and leave Sudan to its people.