THE CUT & PASTE LINKS BELLOW SHOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION CLEARLY.
I think President Afwerki had some drastic changes. It looks like he raised all these issues against the South because of good relationship between South Sudan and the USA. He denies credebility of the ICC justice and also denied the genocide in Darfur saying that it was not studied properly.
GIIR BIAR
http://www.shabait.com/staging/publish/article_009558.html
President Isaias holds talks with Sudanese government delegationBy StaffMar 2, 2009, 14:25
Asmara, 2 March 2009 - President Isaias Afwerki today received and held talks at the State Palace with a Sudanese government delegation headed by Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie, Sudanese Presidential Assistant and Head of Political and Organizational Affairs of the ruling National Congress Party. President Isaias assured the delegation that as the move being taken by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against President Omar Hassan Al-Beshir not only targets the Sudanese leader and the Sudan itself but also the entire countries of the region, Eritrea would not accept it and would stand alongside the Sudanese people. Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie on his part lauded the firm stance of President Isaias, as well as the people and Government of Eritrea in rejecting the ICC issue and the efforts they are exerting towards promoting a comprehensive peace and justice in the Sudan. In this respect, he described such a stance as “correct and courageous.”
Stating that the interference of the International Criminal Court would only aggravate the Sudanese issue in general and that of Darfur in particular rather than bring about solution, Dr. Nafie underlined that the ICC issue would undermine regional peace and prompt neo-colonialism in Africa. Moreover, the two sides reached understanding on continuing the already launched joint efforts aimed at promoting peace and stability in the Sudan. Meanwhile, the first official meeting of the Joint Eritrean-Sudanese Committee towards strengthening relations between the two countries has been conducted at the Denden Hall here in Asmara.
In the meeting, an understanding was reached on the speedy launching of development and economic cooperation between Eritrea and Sudan, besides undertaking joint strategic programs. Discussion was also conducted on ways of extending the necessary support so as to provide impetus to the positive steps taken so far taking into consideration that enhanced bilateral ties benefits both countries and the region as a whole. The high-level Sudanese delegation headed by Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie returned home in the afternoon hours today concluding a one-day working visit.It is to be recalled that President Isaias received and held talks on February 28 with SPLM delegation headed by Dr. Deng Alor, Sudanese Foreign Minister and Member of the Movement’s Executive Council.
President Isaias holds talks with SPLM delegationBy StaffFeb 28, 2009, 14:57
http://www.shabait.com/staging/publish/article_009548.html
President Isaias Afwerki today received and held talks with SPLM delegation headed by Dr. Deng Alor, Sudanese Foreign Minister and Member of the Movement's Executive Council. In the meeting at the Denden Hall, Dr. Deng Alor delivered a message from Gen. Salva Kiir Miayardet, President of South Sudan Government and Vice President of the Sudanese Government of National Unity, to President Isaias. The two sides conducted discussion on relations between Eritrea and the SPLM, developments in South Sudan, the Darfur issue and other Sudanese issues. President Isaias pointed out that as the Sudanese issues could not be viewed in isolation, all parties should avoid strategic perspective and temporary interest and strive for promoting Sudan's strategic interest, unity, stability and equality, and thus a comprehensive solution should be sought for the Sudanese issue. The two parties also assessed that the agreements concluded earlier between the PFDJ and the SPLM did not make significant progress as envisaged despite the prevailing goodwill on the part of both of them. In this regard, they agreed to exert efforts towards developing the historical and strategic relations and cooperation between the two organizations.
Dr. Deng Alor told a local journalist on arrival in Asmara yesterday that there exists a good relation between Eritrea and Sudan and lauded the leading role Eritrea is playing towards resolving the Darfur issue. Noting that countries that play positive and practical role would participate in future dialogue aimed at resolving the Darfur issue, the Sudanese delegation expressed conviction that Eritrea would continue its active role. The delegation returned home in the afternoon hours today.
CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 19TH, 2009
http://somalilandpress.com/1237/president-isaias%E2%80%99-interview-with-the-national-media-regarding-national-regional-and-global-issues-part-iiess.com/1237/president-isaias%E2%80%99-interview-with-the-national-media-regarding-national-regional-and-global-issues-part-ii
During the past 20 years, relations between Eritrea and the Sudan witnessed ups and downs. What is the current status of the relations? Could you explain Eritrea’s position regarding the policies of the Sudanese Government of National Unity in general and the issues of South Sudan, Darfur and East Sudan?
At the Conference of the Sudanese People’s Initiative towards Peaceful Resolution of the Darfur Issue which was held recently in Khartoum, I had raised two important ideas. Sudan today is at a cross road. Under the prevailing circumstance, it is well known as to what our relations with the Sudanese central government, the NIF and later on the Popular Party, as well as other forces in the Sudan. What relations we maintain with the SPLM? How did it develop? It is a long story. The main issue is that Sudan being in a cross road, our policy towards the country is that we do not want to see it getting engulfed in an endless quagmire and civil strife. Based on this strategy, Sudan should get every support we could afford. A situation of conflict and civil strife in that country does not benefit t the Sudanese people and that of the region as a whole. Hence, all our attention and strategy should be geared towards this. But what do we mean by being at a cross road? After all the years of conflict in the Sudan, an agreement was signed in Naivasha, Kenya, between the SPLM and the Sudanese Popular Party. With all reservations, we hoped a positive outcome might be borne from the Agreement. In the hope that the Naivasha Agreement would bring about peace and stability in Sudan, we decided to positively engage with full capacity in the process. However, the situation did not proceed as we expected. Within three years since the signing of the Agreement, the situation further deteriorated. The responsibility, however, does not fall on the side of the South or North Sudan or that of the SPLM and the Popular Party. The developments taking place in South Sudan represent very dangerous ones that could lead to more crises. The details are many. Viewed at from the political, economic and security angles, we could say the situation is going out of hand. Who might be harmed from the situation? Over the last three years following the signing of the Naivasha Agreement, with all the distrust, hatred and accusations, the amount of money provided to the Government of Southern Sudanis not small. The Government of Southern Sudan has received more than five billion dollars of its share. Where has this amount of money gone? What change did it bring about? If we ask how many roads have been constructed; to what extent has the supply of potable water being made available, what health service has been provided, what job opportunities have been created, development and investments projects implemented in Southern Sudan? The answer is definitely none. Instead of perusing unity, ethnic and clan divisions became rampant. Instead of good governance, a corrupt system has been established. This is an alarming situation. I do not want to explain it in figures. In what position has this placed the Naivasha Agreement, the overall situation in the Sudan, particularly South Sudan, is really upsetting. Things have to be rectified. To this end, the core problem has to be identified. There is nothing that could be done by hiding the problems. This is one issue. After the Naivasha Agreement that was believed to bring peace and stability to the country, the Darfur crisis followed. In the past few years, an AU peacekeeping mission was deployed to Darfur which failed to accomplish anything. Then the UN came into the scene which further complicated the situation. As a result of all of this, the situation in Darfur is going out of hand. You could not foresee an immediate solution. The splitting up of the different factions is growing; the interference of external forces is on the rise leaving no room for domestic initiative towards tackling the problem. We could say the situation in Darfur is worsening with each passing day. The prospects for lasting solution are far from showing any positive trend. It requires more and serious effort. Within the past eight years, the Bush Administration’s interference to destabilize and to foment conflict in the Sudan has been enormous. The target of the external interference is the instability of Sudan and its people through creating animosity among the country’s citizens. Hence, the interference of external forces has further aggravated the situation in the Sudan. Besides, the situation in East Sudan has not progressed either as expected. However, it is not comparable to that being witnessed in South Sudan and Darfur. What is our policy regarding this? We do not want to contemplate over what transpired in the past. The territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Sudan should be respected. The central government of Sudan, with all its setbacks and challenges should be supported. The stability and peace in Sudan is to the interest of our region. The problems in that country should be handled and carefully scrutinized sector by sector and issue by issue. Otherwise, creating further fragmentation of the Sudanese people that could be beyond resolution, leaving aside the main issues and concentrating on minor cases that would eventually complicate the situation, will not benefit the people of Sudan and the neighboring countries. The problems have to be evaluated with their objective reality without perusing for personal interests. The different forces in the Sudan should put aside their differences and work for viable solution. On our part, we are working towards reconciliation of the different factions and the normalization of relations between Chad and Sudan. Other friendly countries are also working to this end. Our stance regarding mitigating the problem in Sudan will never weaver with the regional and global political changes. The end result is to be seen in due course.
Excellency, what is the level of external interference in Sudan? What is the real problem in South Sudan? Is it the Naivasha Agreement; is it internal problem or the interference of external forces? Could you give us an insight on the real cause?
This is a big issue that could not be easily articulated. The Naivasha Agreement was signed for realizing self-determination on the part of the people of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan beginning from Sudan’s attainment of independence in 1956 until the signing of the Agreement have been marginalized and sporadic armed opposition has been witnessed. The Naivasha Agreement was an important step forward. We had reservations regarding power-sharing and allocation of resources. With all the reservation on the philosophical, legal and practical aspects of implementation of the programs designed during the transitional period and later, we had the conviction that these would be rectified through time. John Garang had a big influence on the organization. After his death, a huge gap was created in the SPLM. It does not mean that there was clean and efficient direction during his leadership. There was unfinished political process which was underway that led to the signing of the Naivasha Agreement. The situation that we observed later, the division of the people on the basis of clan and ethnicities is the creation of external forces. The political development that was on the process was not finished and the organizational structure that was supposed to consummate the process was also not solid. The amount of money that was squandered in the name of the Agreement within the short time since its signing is substantial. According to the figures we are familiar with; it has reached an estimated 6 billion dollars. One would expect that such an investment would help South Sudan to achieve significant development. But the amount has disappeared without a trace because of corruption due to the existing political vacuum. Although the corruption is byproduct of the political status quo, it further aggravates the situation and creates more division, thus making the solution much more difficult to achieve. Relations between Meatemer and the SPLM, instead of improving over the past 3 years, it has brought further conflict and rift. Some claim that South Sudan will be divided. But what will happen if it is divided tomorrow. It will be a stateless chaos, with no unity; it could become a bizarre display of sectarian violence. We would witness the same thing that is happening to the Central African Republic. The neighboring countries of South Sudan, due to the fact that they want to make use of developments in the region to their advantage, do not contribute anything towards helping solve this dilemma. It is obvious what would happen to South Sudan and its people if it is divided. But considering the domestic issues of South Sudan, interference by external forces would further complicate the issue and entail huge consequence. The issue calls for constant attention and follow up, and this is the basisof our foreign policy regarding the issue.
Let’s go back to the topic we raised earlier as regards relations between Chad and Sudan. As you have mentioned earlier, Eritrea has been striving to solve the problems between the two countries. Taking into consideration the complications external forces are creating, what could we expect as regards developments in Sudanese-Chadian relations? What would be the effective approach to tackle this problem?
Yes, there might be different opinions regarding this issue, but the solution should emanate from shared views and direct dialogue with the concerned parties. The problem in relations between Chad and Sudan is connected with the situation in Darfur. How did the situation in Darfur become a complicated issue? Has the Central Government in Khartoum anything to do with this? We could raise the aforementioned questions and discuss the matter, but the situation has assumed a complicated phase where the concerned parties are engaged in counter accusations and the involvement of foreign powers has complicated matters and has even been aggravated into conflict. So instead of focusing on the main issue of Darfur, it has become a conflict between the two governments. Both sides have their own reasons and their own justification, but this mainly concerns them. However, this is obvious and clear to us, and thus if Sudan is to enjoy lasting peace the Sudan-Chad issue should to be resolved first. The conflicts that had evolved as a cause needs to be averted. Hence, relations between Chad and Sudan as one issue by one side and the situation in Chad by the other side should be resolved one by one and again together as one issue. This requires the goodwill of both concerned parties. On top of this, it needs honest and candid parties of reconciliation; it calls for candid mediators. So far, the parties that have been engaged in the reconciliation of the two parties have been abusing, misusing and exploiting the issue. Neither to bring any solution to the Darfur case nor to resolve the conflict between Sudan and Chad, what is the case here then? It simply shows that tackling the issues at hand was the least concern of the reconciling parties. What is the motive behind Washington’s interference in this case? Or any European countries for that matter? Especially the countries that don’t want the stability of Sudan, this is a big opportunity for them and they are using such an opportunity. But despite all this, we have been working relentlessly to promote stability in the Sudan. It is our duty to offer what we can towards normalizing Sudanese-Chadian relations or promote solution of the Darfur issue. Lately, there emerged a note from the International Court concerning the Sudanese issue. Despite its legal irony, what is the message they are trying to convey through this? This is a ploy designed to expose Sudan to permanent crisis. This is not aimed at securing justice or guaranteeing human rights for the Darfur population, nor is it aimed at directing the future of Darfur along the correct path. By all standards, this has nothing to do with Beshir either; the whole thing is but an attack directed against the Sudanese people. We can raise a number of questions in this regard: What are its legal aspects? What is it based on? How did they initiate the issue and do they have concrete evidence for this? How many lives were lost in this conflict, what is the number of casualties here? Why is the Darfur case so important to them? Is it because the degree of the catastrophe is so intense here compared to other incidents around the globe? Or is it because this holds a special appeal to their interests? All these have their own answers. But ultimately this is not all to contradict Beshir but to put Sudan in permanent crisis. When still the Naivasha Agreement is under implementation, when it is clear to everyone that there would be challenges in the implementation process, and when the Darfur situation has not yet been directed along the right path of reconciliation, when there still prevails the situation in East Sudan and when the general situation in the North is still in as it is, I don’t see why they are so insistent on resolving the issues in Darfur or protecting the right of the Darfur people. What is the preoccupation with this issue? If we should ask the impact of this in undermining the political structure of Sudan and the overall outcome of this on the people of the country and how many more lives it is going to affect? If we should contrast all that has been going on, in all measurements looking at it from both political and legal standpoint, this is unjustifiable. This is a challenge and despite the political differences they have, the people of Sudan should work against this because it affects them in every aspect. Our stance on this is clear and we have voiced it on numerous occasions. Thus, any developments that might arise in the future would be looked at from this policy and it would be possible to attain the desired goal. The situation between Chad and Sudan should hence be considered side by side with Sudanese issue, which by the way should be given increased attention.
As you have already made reference to, the International Court has charged Beshir with ‘crimes of genocide’ and has demanded that Sudan should hand him over. What do such institutions stand for? Who administrates them? How do they operate? What is the stance of the Government of Eritrea regarding such issues?
This is a very broad topic. We could raise questions such as what the origin of such institutions is or who funds them? Do they really know the law or are just mere messengers? Do they stand for justice or have some other hidden agendas? If we look at it in different angles, this was initiated by the Security Council. Invisible elements that pushed the Council to initiate this was the United States. The Bush Administration has orchestrated it. When they announced that genocide has been committed they were merely making a political statement not because they were concerned about the number of casualties or the war that was going on. It is not possible to debate whether genocide has been committed or not or the fact that the situation was getting out of hand. The reality on the ground is sufficient testimony. But right the moment the situation was studied whether genocide has been committed or not, it was announced that it was a genocide attack. The reason behind this is political in nature. And due to some political interests, the issue was escalated just like that not because there was a concern about the situation of Sudan or to relieve the people of Darfur from their miseries but due to some political interest. This was used as a means to exploit the situation in Sudan so as to achieve some hidden agendas. Thus, the Security Council was used as a means. If the Council is really interested in resolving issues, how come its decision on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue that was passed six years ago has not yet been implemented on the ground? How come the Security Council failed to address the Somalia issue? Why is the Council specially interested on the case mentioned above? This leads to the conclusion that in this case there is some hidden political agenda behind and they are using this opportunity. The plan behind all this is to hold Sudan hostage using the issue as a pretext. The situation would continue as long as they get what they want and they will realize it by exploiting the situation in the Sudan. So, by appearing to master the situation in Sudan, they are delaying a possible solution so as to pursue their agenda. By securing their stay in Sudan, they are attempting to exercise their agenda on the region. This is the policy that the Bush Administration has been pursuing. This is not a matter of law or lawlessness; it is not a matter of justice or injustice either. These so-called human right advocators are simply a symbol. What are they trying to highlight by saying the genocide in Darfur is the most terrible act as compared to other atrocities committed all over the world? Why has it drawn international attention? These quarters could claim to be ‘impartial’ or advocates of the rule of law and justice and that they are ‘independent’. But from what we have witnessed over the past 20 years or even before, we can tell who manages these institutions. Whom does the Security Council serve or by the same token the other international organizations for that matter? And who controls the World Bank or the IMF? Who brought the so-called human rights activist organizations? How did they originate? And from where do their staff members come from? Who pays and gives them orders or work directives? Various documents could be referred in connection with these matters. But generally speaking, the intention to bring Bashir to court is conspired for the purpose of realizing different hidden political agendas. If they are really fighting for human rights or working to solve or to look on matters of genocide, why don’t the so-called organizations do something to verify the allegation. You might put aside the issue of bringing somebody to justice. However, why does one bring another obscure problem that would further complicate the prevailing crises? It is really baffling to talk about these so-called organizations. If you look back into history to identify the origin of the NGOs, it is not difficult for anybody to find out the real truth. I can only say that the latest information being disseminated about the origin of such organizations or their staff members is enough for someone who wants to have a clue. There is no new thing to talk about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment