re: "Silent Scream: The Sudan Ethnically Cleanses Its Christians"

Rob Miller at American Thinker (" a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans ") described the traditional next phase after partition: ethnic cleansing.

Money quote(s):

"The government of the predominantly Muslim nation of Sudan has stripped its 500,000 to 700,000 Christians of citizenship and has put them on notice that they have one week to leave the country. Even sub-Jim Crow dhimmi status is to be denied them."

This sort of thing happens whenever a multi-ethnic, multi-confession country partitions into two (or more) states.

That doesn't make it right, but it does make it pretty predictable.

"(T)he government of Sudan has declared that all whose "parents, grandparents or great grandparents [were] born in the South Sudan or [who] belong to any southern ethnic group" are no longer citizens of Sudan and must leave by April 8...or else."

&

"The Sudan has always been a borderland between Arab and black African, between slavemaster and slave. And increasingly, between Muslim and Christian. During the decades-long jihad by the Sudan between the early 1980s and today against the black Africans to the east in Darfur and in the south, conservative estimates put the death toll at over 2 million. Al-Bashir has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, something the Arab League has thumbed their noses at, with al-Bashir able to freely attend meetings and travel all over the region without fear of arrest. The charges he was indicted for -- the mass rapes, the slavetaking, the wanton murders -- make what's going on now in Syria look like a particularly sedate bridge party.

In July 2011, the jihad officially ended when the largely Christian South Sudan achieved independence, although sporadic attacks by al-Bashir's military and aircraft still continue in places like the Nuba Mountains and along the South Sudan borders.

Due to the discord caused by the breakaway, al-Bashir is under pressure to turn the Sudan into a extremist fundamentalist, Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Islamist state." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

One of the critical issues still outstanding between Sudan and South Sudan are that the border between the two states has never been officially demarcated.

"The Iranians already have an arms factory in the Sudan to supply Hamas and their allies in Somalia, Yemen, and Central Africa. If my sources are correct, they also maintain training camps staffed by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezb'allah members, some of whom have been killed by Israeli air strikes on arms convoys headed north in the desert towards Sinai and Gaza.

What al-Turabi and his allies want from Bashir is a full-on Muslim Brotherhood-ruled sharia state, comparable to Iran, Gaza, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

After South Sudan seceded, the Islamists demanded that Bashir implement this, and they have pledged to drive him from power if he doesn't. They formed a party headed by al-Turabi known as the Islamic Constitution Front and drafted a sharia-based constitution that the imam of Khartoum's Grand Mosque endorsed, saying Bashir must "either rule by Islam or go." "

&

"The ethnic cleansing of over half a million Christians is only a first step.

What's notable about this is the hideous silence. There's little or nothing being reported in the media on this. For all the noise about the new Responsibility to Protect Doctrine that was evoked on Libya, the United Nations has nothing to say about what's happening in the Sudan, even though it violates the organization's own charter.

No one is talking about a no-fly zone to protect black Christians under air attack in South Sudan by the Bashir regime, even though our huge air base in Djibouti is within flying distance. The infamously misnamed U.N. Human Rights Commission is preoccupied with Israel to the point of derangement, and the Muslim countries running it will see to it that it stays that way."

&

"For all the demonization of Western Imperialism so popular these days, it was those hated imperialists who largely destroyed the slave trade in the 1870s and brought a measure of peace, civil order, and decency to the country for a brief time. It is our supposedly more modern and compassionate societies that have seen the horror that has gone on in Darfur and in the South Sudan and done nothing...except react with silence.

That silence comes from fear of offending Islam, no matter how egregious and hateful the actions of a significant number of its followers become and no matter how deeply those actions offend our civilized norms."

&

"It reminds me of nothing so much as the 1930s, when the appeasers in Britain and here in our own country reacted with the same indifference while Hitler armed his legions for conquest and ethnically cleansed Germany's Jews."

4/4

re: "China, Sudan, and a dose of irony"

Ian Bremmer at The Call ("Political Futures from Ian Bremer and Eurasia Group") provided an excellent analysis.

Money quote(s):

"Western officials (and more than a few Western celebrities) have criticized China in recent years for its protection of Sudan's government. They've charged Omar al-Bashir's regime in Khartoum with support for ethnically motivated militia attacks on civilians in the country's Darfur region -- and China's government with complicity. Bashir, the world's only fugitive head of state, was indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2008 for Darfur-related crimes against humanity. Beijing uses its veto power to block international efforts to supply UN peacekeepers for Darfur, critics say, to protect its oil interests in the country.

It's ironic then that China's energy needs are now helping forestall a broader (and perhaps bloodier) confrontation in Sudan."

China's got needs, and even Khartoum's greed and bloodthirst have to take a backseat to that fact.

"Last July, Sudan became two countries. The mostly Muslim North and mainly Christian South finalized a relatively amicable break-up as South Sudan became an internationally recognized independent state. But like most divorces, this one did not produce a clean break, because the two countries share custody of the country's oil wealth."

Not only that, but there are major issues about the un-agreed-to border and local ethnic and religious minorities straddling or to the north of that border.

"Not surprisingly, North and South have yet to agree on how to share oil revenue, and each side has used its leverage to pressure the other. An opening of negotiations offered little promise of progress: Khartoum demanded a transit fee of $36 per barrel. The southern government in Juba offered less than a dollar.

On Nov. 8, President Salva Kiir of South Sudan dramatically upped the stakes in the dispute by ordering the expulsion from the south of Sudapet, the North's national oil company and a financial lifeline for its government. Khartoum countered with an announcement that oil exports from South Sudan would be suspended.

China quickly jumped in.

This oil is especially important to the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which has equity production in Sudan of about 200,000 bpd, 15 percent of its total overseas output."

For now, all the pipelines run north into Sudan, but there are other directions in which pipelines can run.

"Most of the crude that CNPC draws from Sudan is not shipped home to China but is sold on international markets. Yet Beijing has emphasized the importance of holding oil assets overseas, providing fuel that can be directed to China if events threaten a sharp drop in supply."

Oil, to a degree, is fungible. You can sell Sudanese oil somewhere conveniently close by (saving on shipping costs) and use the money to buy oil closer to Chinese ports (and markets), where you want it.

And, in extremity, you just ship it all the way to China.

"To save face, Khartoum announced it would allow the oil to pass but would seize about a quarter of the profits as compensation. Low-level violence will continue, and we can expect to see more of the increasingly common attacks on oil fields along the two countries' poorly demarcated border. There will be more turmoil in restive oil-producing regions in the North. But thanks to aggressive Chinese mediation, the oil continues to flow, and Chinese diplomats are now trying to broker a long-term deal on transit fees.

Don't expect China to dive more deeply into conflict resolution in other countries. On foreign policy, China's leadership is risk-averse even in the most confident of times, and the looming transition to a new president, premier, and party elite over the next two years will make officials even more cautious. Only when political and commercial interests clearly coincide, as they do in Sudan, will Beijing move quickly to intervene in the politics of other countries"

For decades, China's had an overall Non-Intervention Policy (NIP) regarding its international partners' internal matters.

(Of course, as of South Sudanese independence last July, Khartoum's relationship with the south is no longer an internal matter.)

12/15

re: "Israel and South Sudan announce full diplomatic ties"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog by the Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") explained some of this development's significance.

Money quote(s):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu officially recognized the new country a week before the U.N. voted to make it the 193rd state to be admitted to the world body, earlier this month."

A small country carved out of the territory of an aggressive Islamist hegemon. What could they possibly have in common?

"Israel, which has no relations with northern Sudan, has promised South Sudan economic help -- something it is in need of.

The Jewish state sees Africa as important diplomatic territory and has been offering economic aid and lucrative business deals in recent years -- including arms and agriculture -- in an attempt to counter Iran's growing clout on the continent. The effort is partially about votes in the U.N. -- Africa has 54 now. Iran has been trying to extend its outreach to African states like Senegal and Nigeria in an effort to counter its growing isolation in the West."

Israel is getting in on the ground floor with a country needing all sorts of nation-building expertise.

"Israel has another reason for wanting to establish ties with the new country. In recent years it has been flooded with thousands of refugees from Sudan -- people fleeing strife in both Darfur and South Sudan. They sneak into Israel through Egypt and have stirred debate about whether the country should be more or less welcoming. Already, since the announcement of new ties, the country's interior minister, Eli Yishai, has called on Israel to begin negotiations with South Sudan to return the refugees."

This is an angle I hadn't heretofore considered, but it touches on important domestic political and cultural issues that only reinforce what a win-win diplomatic strategy this is for Israeli.

7/28

re: "Muslims Texting Death Threats to Christians: "We want this country to be purely an Islamic state, so we must kill the infidels and destroy thei"

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") asked the what-comes-next question:

"Did you really believe that the Islamic north Sudan would allow the Christians and black secular Muslims to live in peace in the north after they (South Sudan) declared independence from the brutal oppression and genocide of jihad?"

Historically, one of the follow-on consequences from partition based upon ethnicity or religion has been ethnic cleansing in the rump successor-state. See the Balkans, Greece, and Turkey after World War I, Eastern Europe after World War II, and Pakistan after the partition with India.

That doesn't make it right or pretty, but it does make it unsurprising.

9/18

re: "Why call it 'Pakistan'?"

The Anti-Jihadist at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") had some tough words for Pakistan (and Sudan).

Money quote(s):

"South Sudan's hopeful creation as a new nation is a glorious moment, as well as a sobering one. We should remember as to why South Sudan's existence became necessary in the first place. We must remind the world over and over that the birth of South Sudan as a independent state was long required precisely because Muslims cannot long live amicably with followers of other belief systems."

Sudan is (or was) an amalgamation of, roughly, four (now three) historical kingdoms, sultanates, or whathaveyou and could probably use a little more devolution, leaving even less of its territory (and people) in the hands of "President" Bashir.

"South Sudan's secession from Sudan is in many way a mirror image of another 'secession' that took place over 60 years ago. In the waning days of the British Empire, British India was to be divided into two countries, a Muslim one and a Hindu one, and India was to be cleaved forever into those two parts."

A distorted mirror image, but a mirror image to be sure. The historical differences (and parallels) would suffice for a master's thesis (if not a doctoral dissertation).

"While the larger Hindu India has found a modicum of political stability, has enjoyed decades of economic success, and exports its vibrant culture via its booming film industry worldwide, its Muslim counterpart Pakistan flirts with failed-nation status.

Pakistan is in fact a nightmare of state-sponsored jihadist terrorism inside and outside of its borders. Except for a tiny elite, the country only offers unimaginable squalor and poverty for its people. It has featured a string of unbelievably incompetent and corrupt governments that have exported Islamic terrorism to distant continents, as far as the UK and the USA. Pakistan harbors the world's top terrorists who are allowed to live inside its borders with impunity, free to continue conspiring and plotting mass murder. Pakistan has launched three wars of aggression in its blood-soaked history, all against India, all of which Pakistan lost. Pakistan builds nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable missiles, which it sells the technology for to any and all comers, no questions asked. Pakistan sucks up gifts such as weapons and supplies, intelligence data from the US, and especially financial aid packages from the rest of the world, and either squirrels the money away into various numbered accounts, or passes along as loot to jihad terrorists and other enemies of the Free World. Barbarous shariah laws viciously run riot and leave an ever-growing pile of broken and dead bodies in its wake. Pakistan's police and military murder journalists who question how and why such a horrid state of affairs has come to pass. And on and on."

Pretty damning stuff, to be sure.

"(M)ay I humbly suggest that Pakistan no longer be referred to as "Pakistan", the so-called 'Land of the Pure". Merely mentioning the name is, in a way, tacitly accepting its existence, which right-thinking people everywhere should instantly reject. So, from this point onwards, let us call that place by a more culturally and historically correct name: "Muslim-occupied India". For India was a Hindu land for thousands of years before the invading barbarians of Islam appeared to seize Hindu lands and slaughter its inhabitants, which laid the groundwork for the eventual Muslim calamitous maladministration of that same land."

(7/9)

re: "South Sudan"

David Warren at David Warren Online ("my daily newspaper articles for the time since Sept. 11th, 2001") shared some nearly specialist-level area knowledge of South Sudan.

Money quote(s):

"The frontiers are not yet secure, and the ultimate shape of this new country depends on the resolution of the conflict with (northern) Sudan, over possession of the large district of Abyel, which is a melding zone between the Muslim north and Christian-Animist south, both geographically and demographically."

"Melding zone" is one way of looking at it. Abyei, within South Kordofan (the name itself is a form of arabization-inspired north Sudan cultural imperialism), is part of Islam's "bloody borders," marking the bleeding edge of moslem conquest as it marches (and rides, and raids) further and further up the Nile valley.

"Only in the 19th century did European adventurers become fully aware of regions like southern Sudan, thanks more to private missionary efforts than to imperial ambitions. It was an afterthought to the Anglo-Egyptian authorities, extending their rule into the swampland of the White Nile, a very long way from Cairo; and also to British East African officials, curious to find what lay beyond Uganda.

History, and in this case the imperial histories that underlie so many contemporary world issues, is unfortunately no longer taught except to ideological specialists, which is how I excuse this very general briefing. The British in fact saw the problem coming, of putting millions of tropical rainforest-dwelling black Africans under the rule of desert-dwelling Arabized Muslims, at least a century ago. Their intention to make the region an extension of Uganda, instead of Sudan, was defeated by "events."

So much of today's sprawling political and economic catastrophe through sub-Saharan Africa can be traced not to imperialism, per se, but to the imperial authorities' eagerness to leave around the signal year of 1960. It was an appalling cat's cradle of quick fixes they left behind.

The rest could be attributed to the people they put in power, or dangerously near power, during this evacuation: a generation of African statesmen educated in places like the London School of Economics, or the École Nationale de la France d'Outre-Mer, on what were then the latest Fabian and socialist principles.

Add nascent African nationalisms - also encouraged by the chic, departing Europeans - and stir. In retrospect, the reduction of sub-Saharan Africa, with its extraordinary natural resources and diversity of alert and capable peoples, to desperate poverty and a violent hash, was just what we should have expected."

The preceding five short paragraphs encapsulate the historical truths it took me week, and volumes, to conclude. (Nice work.)

"Africa is not a mess because it is black. Africa is a mess because it was made into an immense Petri dish for asinine Utopian experiments, by people who walked when they started going wrong."

Simplistic and incomplete, but not untrue.

(7/9)

re: "House Human Rights Committee Considers Christian Genocide in Sudan"

George McGraw at Big Peace gives a clear picture of ethnic cleansing.

Money quote(s):

"The Nuba people of Sudan’s Southern Kardofan region are being systematically exterminated in the midst of a developing genocide described as “the world’s next Rwanda.” "

These are the people from whom the region gets its traditional name of Nubia. Their culture predates that of the arabicized Sudanese muslims who dominate Sudan.

"Sudanese military forces under the command of President Omar Al Bashir are targeting civilians – particularly women and children – with both ground and air assaults in an effort to eradicate the Christian and ethnic Nuba populations. The move also aims to diminish capacity and support for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which has taken up arms in opposition to the violence."

Nothing surprising in any of that. It's how they roll. The SAF and Pres. Bashir can be relied upon, always, to oppress, massacre, or marginalize any of their fellow citizens who won't pretend they're Arabs.

"On June 5th Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) began the aerial bombardment of civilian targets followed by the house-to-house mass extermination of Christians, Nubans and SPLM by Sudan’s Popular Defense Force (PDF) – described by some as the “Al Qaeda of Sudan.” "

The SPLM (a.k.a. the SPLA or even SPLM/A) now has its own country, South Sudan. However there are plenty of its supporters north of the (mostly undefined) border in Sudan. Pres. Bashir clearly aims to change the facts on the ground to make that no longer the case.

"Egyptian peacekeepers stationed outside of the state capital (Kadugli) allowed government forces to enter the their base and separate Nubans and SPLM supporters from other civilians seeking shelter there. Sudanese forces then murdered them outside of the mission’s gates."

Anybody reading the news out of Cairo these days? Anybody going to be surprised at this behavior. Why wouldn't the Egyptian army allow their Sudanese brethren access to the UN compound and the civilians there?

"(T)he escalation in violence is directly linked to the disputed gubernatorial appointment of Ahmed Haroun, who like Bashir, is wanted for war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court. In a recent open letter to the UN, Bishop Elnail recently declared that, “once again, we are facing the nightmare of genocide of our people in a final attempt to erase our culture and society from the face of the earth.” For his part, Mr. Phillips estimated that one half of the Nuban population has been exterminated by Northern military leaders since the 1980s."

The good bishop has this exactly right. This is genocide aimed at ethnic cleansing of what remains of Sudan. If you don't match Pres. Bashir's template of constitutes one of his true countrymen, then your life and livelihood is forfeit.

"As strafing and high-altitude bombing drive civilians into nearby caves, important agricultural plots have been left untended. Widespread food shortage and infrastructural destruction, coupled with mass internal displacement, are expected to contribute to a humanitarian emergency that Mr. Phillips characterized as “slow motion genocide by design.” "

It's a good plan, if ethnic cleansing is your goal. As things get worse, some will become refugees headed to South Sudan (a state without much in the way of resources themselves) to either die en route or become a burden to their neighbors.

"If nothing is done, violence in Southern Kardofan threatens to destabilize recent political independence in neighboring Southern Sudan, drawing it back into a state of active conflict with the North."

Unfortunately, this place is just so remote and there is so little U.S. interest (since U.S. oil companies pulled out decades ago) there that it's a miracle that the U.S. (and others) were able to get South Sudan pulled out of Sudan to begin with. There are going to be borders, and central governments dominated by ethno-religious politics are going to pursue policies of ethno-religious cleansing. And unless the "international community" is willing to "cowboy up" and do something about it, it's going to happen without much being done about it other than providing aid to the survivors.

Frankly, sometimes all that can be done is to bear witness. Not necessarily in silence, but take note nonetheless. And recall the Kennedy administration's admonition to "don't get mad, get even."

(There are some minor concrete things that should, quietly, be happening behind the scenes. Like making note of who the Egyptian peacekeepers, and their commanders, are, and making sure that none of them ever get a dime of U.S. military aid or training again, to say nothing of U.S. visas.. Blacklisting them from participation in future UN peacekeeping activities would seem too obvious to mention, but probably has to be. Having them court-martialed and hanged would be too much to hope for, I fear.)

re: "Ramping Up to Another Jihad Genocide in The Sudan?"

Andrew Bostom ("Uncreated, Uncreative Words") puts the situation in Nubia (i.e., South Kordofan) into historical perspective.

Money quote(s):

"(Y)et another jihad genocide may be under way in The Sudan—Arab Muslim mass murderers preying upon indigenous non-Arab, primarily Christian blacks—this time in the Nuba Mountains."

The Nuba Mountains are, mostly, in the central part of what is now (since the formerly semi-autonomous Southern Sudan is now independent South Sudan) southern Sudan.

"Conservative death toll estimates as of now suggest that the number is at least in the “hundreds,” with a minimum of 60,000 displaced.

The feckless UN peacekeeping presence confined to its Kadugli base, includes Egyptian peacekeepers, viewed as very sympathetic toward the Arab Khartoum government, and accused by many Nuba of being complicit in targeted assassinations within the U.N. camp sheltering displaced refugees."

This is a very old story for Sudan, predating independence by centuries.

"Jihad depredations against the Nuba are a recurring phenomenon in Sudan’s history. Winston Churchill’s accounts from The River War as a young British soldier fighting in the Sudan at the end of the 19th century, described the chronic situation, in its larger context"

Looks like I'll have to find this book.

"During the 1990s, some 500,000 Nuba were killed when the Arab Muslim Khartoum government declared jihad against them."

Governments declaring jihad against their "own" people? That can't be a good thing, can it? I suppose it's easier if you don't actually see them as either "yours" or "people."

"The Nuba’s chronic plight raises yet again this overarching moral and existential question for our era of resurgent global jihad posed in 1999 by the late southern Sudanese leader John Garang:

Is the call for jihad against a particular people a religious right of those calling for it, or is it a human rights violation against the people upon whom jihad is declared and waged?"

John Garang, who died in 2005, got his start as a South Sudanese leader when he was sent to quell a mutiny among Sudanese troops in the south who had been ordered to move to the north (where they didn't want to go).

He joined them. (Before that, he was an officer in the Sudanese Armed Forces.)

CTV - Ten countries experts say are too dangerous to visit

From my archive of press clippings:

CTV.ca

Ten countries experts say are too dangerous to visit

Updated Sun. May. 10 2009 7:46 AM ET

Lauren Sherman, Forbes.com

Though many travelers have crossed Mexico off their summer wish lists, it's not the only region with a travel alert.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"In April alone, the U.S. government warned against travel in Yemen, Georgia, Sudan and the Central African Republic. Terrorism, crime and civil unrest are among the reasons the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs warns Americans to avoid these countries."

re: "When To Use America's Military To End Genocide: A Conversation with Nicholas Kristof"

Hugh Hewitt summarizes a recent interview.

Money quote(s):

"The U.S. under Bush used two interventions to topple two regimes in rapid indeed amazing fashion. It proved far less competent in establishing successor governments, though in the past year in Iraq we have seen new tactics bring about extraordinary progress, and we are hoping for the same sort of turning in Afghanistan."

"President Obama has a unique opportunity to establish rules under which the U.S. will move decisively to end slaughter in countries where the U.S. does not need to worry about significant military opposition, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe. Because of the new president's standing in the Third World and because of his party's complete control of the Congress, he has it in his power to lay down the law for Bashir and Mugabe and bring their murderous regimes to an end, and by doing so to send a message to the rest of the continent that dictatorship has its limits, and widespread slaughter as in Zimbabwe and outright genocide as in Sudan will not be tolerated."

&

"For the next three-and-a-half-years, the United States means President Obama and the people who influence his decisions. The new president has already approved of the use of deadly force in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and at sea off the course of Somalia. His advisors and those who influence them and him should begin working out a larger framework for deploying the awesome might of the American military where tens of thousands of lives are at stake, none of them American."