What are the interests behind the referendum in southern Sudan?

Image via Wikipedia SUDAN

by Keith Harmon Snow

A Brazillian Newspaper sent me the following questions; my replies appended. The US is all over Sudan -- not for the better.

The US and its allies -- especially Israel and UK -- already de facto control the independent territory South Sudan. So this is basically a US protectorate. The South's separation and isolation from the north was achieved through the covert war sponsored by the US/UK and Israel from circa 1991 to 2003. Of course, the war in the South merely shifted to Darfur in 2003. But from 1991 to 2003 -- and to the present -- the US has backed, armed, trained, and supplied the Sudan People's Liberation Army (and then the Sudan Liberation Army, which is the Darfur wing of the SPLA) through one of our leading terrorist "governments" in Africa -- Uganda.

The Referendum would formalize and legalize the issue of "independence" -- leading to all kinds of political advantages and/or leverage for the US and its allies. The US block has covert operatives in South Sudan and large military involvement. We have private military companies --  mercenary firms -- in South Sudan (Dyncorp -- http://www.privateforces.com/content/category/1/85/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=990) under the cover story that they are training SS's police. Other mercenary firms (Lockheed Martic subsidiary Pacifdic Architects and Engineers, ArmorGroup out of England, etc) support the so-called "peacekeeping" forces of the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), and still otheres provide logistics (military) for the so called "relief" organizations. These are all forms of militarizing South Sudan to serve the prerogatives of Washinton, Tel Aviv, London and Brussels. Dyncorp and PAE had contracts worth more than $20 milion at one point, just to "support the African Union" (sic) -- another western military element in teh war for Sudan.

The referendum will help formalize separation from the Muslim north and the Bashir government, which the US does not like.

How the Western powers have been behaving about it? What are their concerns and interests about the subject?

The western powers want Bashir out. That's a major objective, since Bashir is an Arab and has asserted his independence. Of course, if Bashir was cooperative we wouldn't care. But he's problematic.

Why does the US not like Bashir?

[1] He fought in the Yom Kippur war, with Egypt, against Israel;
[2] He has always supported the Palestinians;
[3] He sided with China to exploit the oil in the north and center;
[4] He's maintains an indepednet financial system out side the World Bank, IMF, US monetary system;
[5] He keeps control of the sugar industry in Sudan outside the US sugar industry;
[6] He is friendly with Eritrea;
[7] He is Arab and Moslem and the south is Christian.

Oil, gold, uranium, gum arabic (essential for Coca Cola, Pepsi and {Unilever products like} Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream), large swaths of the most fertile land in the world, and sugar, are some of the main commodities that the US/UK/Israeli block seeks to control. Darfur is one vast oil field/concession (see the map on my web site) and is also home to 2/3rds of world supply of gum arabic and the best quality gum arabic in the world.

Militarily, the control of South Sudan, Darfur and North Sudan are all separate but intertwined issues. Sudan is a problem area between Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Eritrea. The US already has major AFRICOM and intelligence presence in each of these other countries except Eritrea, and especially in Ethiopia and Uganda and Kenya, where billions of dollars have been converted from "aid" to weaponry. Sudan provides a convenient territory from which to oversee military and economic (plunder) objectives in the Middle East. With Bashir in there we dont have the access we'd like. Sudan also has some ties to arab factions in Somalia, along with Eritrea, which the US/UK/Israel/Kenya/Uganda/
Ethiopia are fighting against.

Basically, this is another "demonstration" election. It is highly manipulated by the outside powers, involving billions of dollars in USAID, DFID, US State department and other western "AID" and "development" funds earmarked for "electioneering".  So there's massive wesetrn meddling in these elections.


Does really the U.S. support the separatist groups in the South? Why?

Answered above. We are supporting numefrous military and political groups, and we have a massive AID system that has been used to further political and cultural and economic objectives,. For example, the years of Christain AID "chairties" shipping everything from Bibles to AK-47s into South Sudan through teh multibillion dollars a year Opertation Lifeline Sudan. SVAE DARFUR and URGENCE DARFUR -- US and French entities -- have backed the so called REBEL factions in Darfur, the Justice & Equality Movemnet and Sudan Liberation Army.

NED, the IRI, NDI etc are all over both North and South Sudan (http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/africa/sudan). This is covert stealth capitalism and control and it will NOT benefit the people in the long run. Its how we buy out what we need, in paralel with how we shoot out what we want. NED played a huge role in the electioneering: they always do. These NED funded institutions are established to BUY OUT the people and coopt any true movements for true independence. All of them are basically intelligence and propaganda fronts.

What are the challenges that Southern Sudanese will have to face after the separation?

The people of South Sudan are pawns in a great game in which we are the puppeteers. The people of SS wil have to face the same kinds of problems that African, Asian, Latin American people have to gface everywhere: Capitalism. This is already happening. Capitalism is based on private profit. What we will see are increasing land grabs, multinational controls, taxes favorable to corp[orations, AID and RELIEF (the misery industry) will continue to prey on people's suffering. Sure, a few schools and churches and other infrastructures will pop up here and there but only superfically, with superficial caring, and especially when it serves some large corporate interests. Which also means: Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya, especially, will benefit from certain developments in the "independence" of South Sudan. The people will have to face starvation, lack of potable water, pollution by corporations, and agribusiness theft. They will also have to suffer under the deprivations caused by the SPLA and other militarized factions, who have been brutal to the people of the south, and are also responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
 
How should be the behavior of Khartoum after the separation?

I don't understand your question. If you are asking: what can we expect to see from Khartoum... I imagine the US and Khartoum will continue to secretly duke it out in all kinds of ways. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to speculate on this question.

Who would be the members of the new government of South Sudan and what are their profiles?

That's a question to be answered by time. Also, perhaps better answered by someone else at present. We can be assured they will be pliable allies of the US and NED and etc. Probably all friends of Roger Winter -- the US Committee for Refugees and USAID official and freind of Susan Rice who is responsible for organizing the covert genocide and war in Rwanda, South Sudan and in Darfur.

How do you see the issue of Abyei region?

Abyei is a border zone between north and south and a flashpoint. What is happening there is a theft of lands. People on both sides are scared that they will lose control and lose power and lose land. Its really a mirror for much of the rest of the country. Violence is/has been/will be created / fomented by operatives and provocateurs working secretly who generate violence that can be blamed on teh opposing government/faction. But this is nothing new.

The new country is very poor and its infrastructure is fragile. Do you think there is a danger that foreign governments and transnational corporations would take advantage of this situation to build the infrastructure of the new country and take its oil?

Its already started. Its long in the making. All the groundwork has been laid, and many corporations and private (thieves) developers are already there. But there will, of course, be a huge increase in multinational penetration as South Sudan's non-oil resources are further targeted and more and more contracts are let for "infrastructure" that will service US/UK/Israeli/multinational interests.

 Some people say that the referendum on Sudan could encourage other separatist tendencies on the continent. What do you think about that?

I'd have to address each case on a case by case basis. Clearly, separatist movements BY and FOR the people are something that I might favor and we should all favor. Say, the Ndebele people seeking independence in Zimbabwe or the San Bushman seeking autonomy and control of the lands they are being excluded from (diamonds, oil). Or the Ogoni, Itsekeri and Ijaw peoples, for another example, seeking independence from the centralized racist pro-corporate pro-western government of Nigeria. That's probably a good thing. These borders were created by the west and for the west. Maybe they should be broken down. However, having western military create , foment and control these successions is devastating to Africa and its people.

How do you see the Darfur issue in this context?

Darfur is the same story in a slightly different context. Its about resource grabs and when the so called PEACE ACCORDS were being developed for South Sudan the West needed to shift its foci of attack and Darfur became that point of foci. As I said, Darfur is one vast oil field, but UNDP, USAID, DFID, etc all have massive interest in making sure that big western multinationals control the fertile lands for gum arabic, sugar, ethanol and what ever else WE want to make our profits on.

There will be plenty of additional propaganda (lies, deceptions, stereotypes, distortions and disinformation) generated by people like Dr. Eric Reeves (Smith college state department propgandast) and Gerard Prunier (Urgence Darfur), by John Prendergast and Alex de Waal and George Clooney. These are the Wests primary disinformation operatives on Sudan.

Related articles

• What Does The Future Hold for South Sudan? (humanrights.change.org)
• Obama congratulates South Sudan on independence vote, but what about Abyei? - Christian Science Monitor (news.google.com)
• Analysis: South Sudan must balance foreign relations after split (reuters.com)
• South Sudan vote on course for a resounding 'yes' to independence (telegraph.co.uk)
• North and South Sudan: Challenge of Forming Cooperative Ties - Voice of America (news.google.com)
• The New Republic: Challenges Loom For South Sudan (npr.org)
• Oil and power at center of vote to split Sudan (cnn.com)
• Answering Your Sudan Questions, Take 2 (kristof.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Historic vote ends in south Sudan (bbc.co.uk)
• A border region caught in the middle as Sudan prepares to split (independent.co.uk)