Why are the globalists silent when it comes to totalitarian Islamic aggression in Sudan?

In a 2006 article written for the Stanford Journal of International Relations, called “Responding To Genocide In Sudan,”¹ Stephan M. Doane lays out reasoning for a much needed, tougher international stand on the issues plaguing Sudan.

The article is dated, but raises, on an academic level, awareness about the plight of many South Sudanese people, who are stuck in a cycle of constant violence. Many of whom are Christians.

Doane’s piece is well researched. He argues that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is less acknowledged by international stakeholders. For example, the U.N and the international community appear “indifferent” towards the aggression and socio-political maneuvering of the Islamist North.

Evidence for this is found in the fact that up until at least 2006, when foreign aid was delivered to Sudan for distribution in the South, the North controlled when, where and who received it. As a result, International aid became one more way in which the North could control the South.

Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), was restricted by the North from bringing aid to South Sudan. Many died because of UN acquiescence to Khartoum demands that dictate where to allow passage of UN-sponsored flights. To this day (2006) the UN still grants the northern government authority over its relief efforts. (Doane, p.2)

Demographically, the North of Sudan is “primarily Arab and Arab-African” (p.1). Most of the North are Muslim who desired Sudan to become Muslim. Doane, citing Madut Jot’s “War and Slavary in Sudan”, 2001 states that the resolute will to make Sudan an Arab and Islamic nation originates from the belief that:

Arabism has a superior rank than Africanism, based on the way they view the racial hierarchy […] Southern leaders were treated as second class citizens. The intent of the North was to implement Islamic law (Shari’a) and set up and Islamic state; ‘It’s chosen hegemony’ (p.2).

According to Doane, Sudan’s troubles can be traced back to its independence. When independence was formed, under a British civil administration in 1947, “many of the southern representatives present were not ready to accept the unity of the Sudan – due in large part to prior deception from the North” (those deceptions aren’t elaborated on).

In 1955, a civil war erupted between North and South that lasted until 1972. This was initiated by the South and was triggered primarily because “the Sudanese government [sought] to subjugate southerners to a cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage that is not their own – Islam.”(p.2)

In 1983, civil war broke out again. This time towns were “ravaged by government troops and government supported milita caused internal displacement of southerners in gigantic proportions. The hijacking of food deliveries from international relief agencies resulted in more than 250,000 deaths by famine in 1988 alone, in addition to military casualties. Military victories by the Southern forces motivated a peace initiative which included the abolishment of Islamic Law (Shari’a) as the law of the land (p.2).”

Doane continues:

Displaced Southerners were often gathered in forced-labor camps as well as re-education camps where children are forced to learn Arabic, memorize the Qu’ran, convert to Islam, and are beaten or tortured if they do not comply. [Among other war crimes] Women are frequently raped; arbitrary arrests and imprisonment are common […] Government armies and government-supported Popular Defence Forces also sell southern women and children as slaves (p.2).

Yet, even with these examples:

…many international governments support the aggressor [the North] and its policy goals. In addition, the U.N has been reluctant to rebuke the Sudanese government for its human rights violations […] The international body most sympathetic to the northern government is the League of Arab States. Bulgaria, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and former Soviet Republics have all sold weapons to the northern government armies and state-sponsored militias (p.4).

As Doane is right to point out, “what is most ironic, however, is Sudan’s membership on the UN Human Rights Commission.” Furthermore, “the hypocrisy of selecting such an abusive government to judge human rights violaters reveals the extent to which the world has turned a blind eye to the [issue of slavery in Sudan] and the genocidal actions of the North.”

Sudan was a member of the UN Human Rights Commission from 1998-2000 and was assured a seat in the 2012² election round for the Commission’s replacement, the UN Human Rights Council which replaced the Commission in 2006.³ The North’s candidacy was, however, vetoed when a “group of African nations petitioned against it”,⁴ on the grounds of the human rights abuses carried out there by the North.

Doane also highlights how blind-eyed foreign investment in oil, helped the North exploit and torture the people of the South.

Citing Mindy Belz, “China’s petroleum firm (CNPC) reportedly purchased a high-tech radar system for the government last year. It was installed in summer, and since then the government bombing raids against southern targets (mostly churches and humanitarian relief organisations) have increased.”⁵

He then writes:

The windfall of revenue allowed the North to purchase sufficient military firepower to permanently eradicate the South Sudanese opposition. This impending possibility correlates with the stated vision and previous action of the despotic Khartoum regime, and this threat must not be taken lightly (p.5)

In concluding, Doane links up the War on Terror with continued oppression in the South. While the North supported the West in its War on Terror, the North had leverage over any committed effort by the international community to push for peace and justice for the South Sudanese:

It would be sadly, ironic if the deaths of thousands of civilians on September 11 provide a pretext that the North Sudanese Government could use to kill many more thousands of civilians with international impunity (p.8)

In other words, Christians and people of South Sudan were fighting a war against terror in their own right, only to be overlooked by the West, because they lacked the resources, voice, support, and recognition that its Northern neighbour had and has.

Doane’s essay is eleven years old and shows its age. It doesn’t mention the 2013 ethnically motivated civil war in the South, nor does it mention diplomatic efforts in the way of sanctions, pushed for by the recent Obama administration, efforts designed to censure the North. Also missing is the important historical note that in 2011, South Sudan found its own independence⁶

Although independence was won, and civil war continues to linger, turmoil created by the North also continues. In 2012, the UN Security Council issued a resolution calling for a cessation of “repeated incidents of cross-border violence between [North] Sudan and South Sudan, including seizure of territory, support to proxy forces and aerial bombing.”⁷

The South is a nation trying to find its way towards reconciliation. It’s a new nation, that fought a great struggle against much of what the world seems to ignore: militant Islamist expansionism, non-white racism, modern slavery, and religious genocide. Given their fight against terror and oppression; the calamity, division and devastation brought onto the South by the North, it’s no surprise, that two years after independence, the South was thrown into a civil war.

The strength and benefit of “Responding To Genocide In Sudan” is found in its clear ability to raise awareness of the situation in Sudan. With over 45 references, it issues us with a reliable resource that gives invaluable insight into the whole of Sudan. Both what it is, what it was and what it may perhaps still become. It’s age shouldn’t be a deterrent to reading it.

South Sudan is a war torn land. It’s a land torn apart by wars spreading out over eight decades. There can be no doubt that the South Sudanese are an ostracized, isolated and suffering people, stuck in a perpetual cycle of violence.

Stephan Doane highlights this tragedy and the need for its quick remedy. Through it he also reminds us about what occurs when, once again, the world stands by in its appeasement of real totalitarians, who under the guise of peace, blind the world to the oppression of their people; disguising the insidious nature of an ideology that forges a toxic hegemony, from which the totalitarian can hide his or her crimes behind.