Sudan becoming "US ally" on war on terror

[2952-0-0]

Sudan Becomes US Ally in 'War on Terror' 
by Douglas Jehl
 
Sudan's Islamist regime, once shunned by Washington for providing a haven for Osama bin Laden as well as for human rights abuses during decades of civil war, has become an ally in the Bush administration's "war on terror".

Only months after the US accused Khartoum of carrying out genocide in Darfur, Sudan has become a crucial intelligence asset to the CIA.

In the Middle East and Africa, Sudan's agents have penetrated networks that would not normally be accessible to America, one former US intelligence official told the Guardian. Some of that cooperation has spilled over into the war in Iraq: Sudan is credited with detaining foreign militants on their way to join anti-American fighters there.

Sudanese agents have also helped the CIA to monitor Islamist organisations in Somalia.

"The intelligence relationship is the strongest thread between Washington and Khartoum," the official said. "Khartoum is probably the only government in the Arab League that has contributed in a major way to the protection of US forces and citizens in Iraq."

News of the growing cooperation was first reported in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. The paper traced the thaw in relations since 2001 to a milestone last week: the visit to Washington by Sudan's intelligence chief, Salah Abdallah Gosh. It reported that Sudan's secret police had begun to crack down on suspected Islamists, had shared evidence with the FBI and allowed US personnel to interrogate al-Qaida suspects.

In May 2003, Sudanese security forces raided a suspected terrorist training camp and deported more than a dozen, mainly Saudi, militants to Arab states which work closely with US intelligence services, the newspaper said.

Yet a decade ago Sudan was a haven to Bin Laden and other international outlaws, such as Carlos the Jackal. In 1993, it was placed on the US state department's list of terrorist regimes. Approaches from Khartoum were rebuffed - even as it offered its services against an emerging al-Qaida in the 1990s.

"Sudan tried to hand over two guys implicated in the 1998 bombing of the US embassies in east Africa, and the response was to send cruise missiles to hit the aspirin factory in Khartoum," the official said. "They offered up Bin Laden in 1995, and we said we don't even have an indictment on him."

Officially, Washington's position towards Sudan remains unchanged. "Sudan is still considered a state sponsor of terror," a state department spokesman said yesterday.

News of General Gosh's visit to Washington caused consternation in human rights circles. The general is among 51 Sudanese officials implicated in human rights abuses by the international criminal court.

"I quite understand that the war on terrorism means dealing with bad actors, but to fly in one of Sudan's chief committers of what Washington has formally described as genocide is deeply disturbing," said an independent Sudan analyst, Eric Reeves. He noted there had been signs of a slight thaw towards Khartoum for some time - despite the state department's official stance.

© Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

[Banana Republic]

Why am I not surprised?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once again, if Bush were strong on terror he'd be backing the Sudan People's Liberation Army in the south, the Christian guerillas fighting the evil Muslim regime.

[Lunar]

Outside of the systemic gang rapes and slavery, Sudan's really not that bad.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

um yes. That's like saying "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

LONG LIVE THE SUDAN PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY!



They're Christian AND leftist, and they're fighting against a Muslim regime. How can you get any better?

[Lunar]

Way to put me in my place.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just stating the facts. Sudan is a terrible genocidal place, and the best US foreign policy move would be to support the Christian guerillas.

[Lunar]

Just stating the facts. Sudan is a terrible genocidal place, and the best US foreign policy move would be to support the Christian guerillas.

Heh, and I congratulated you for sticking it to my sarcasm.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And I thought that the last post was sarcasm. Well that's the internet.

[Beet]

This is a quick reversal

[WMS]

At the moment there is a cease-fire and kind of a peace agreement, between the SPLA and the government, so that makes this easier to happen. The question is, what happens if the agreement breaks down?

And if you want to really bash a government over this, look no further than the People's Republic of China, who has given plenty of aid to the government and has invested much in Sudan's oilfields in the south...so did Malaysia, come to think of it.

[Lunar]

At the moment there is a cease-fire and kind of a peace agreement, between the SPLA and the government, so that makes this easier to happen. The question is, what happens if the agreement breaks down?

And if you want to really bash a government over this, look no further than the People's Republic of China, who has given plenty of aid to the government and has invested much in Sudan's oilfields in the south...so did Malaysia, come to think of it.

Indeed.  China is Sudan's main friend in the world.  Any action taken by the US in Sudan is going to be percieved as an interntional attack on Chinese national interests.  Thus, it's critical to approach Sudan carefully for humanitarian and peacekeeping projects, preferably as dual American-Chinese endeavors.

[WMS]

At the moment there is a cease-fire and kind of a peace agreement, between the SPLA and the government, so that makes this easier to happen. The question is, what happens if the agreement breaks down?

And if you want to really bash a government over this, look no further than the People's Republic of China, who has given plenty of aid to the government and has invested much in Sudan's oilfields in the south...so did Malaysia, come to think of it.

Indeed.  China is Sudan's main friend in the world.  Any action taken by the US in Sudan is going to be percieved as an interntional attack on Chinese national interests.  Thus, it's critical to approach Sudan carefully for humanitarian and peacekeeping projects, preferably as dual American-Chinese endeavors.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

[Lunar]

I was serious on that post.

China is very edgy about any US action in Sudan.  China doesn't really oppose US humanitarian aid and whatnot, it just wants to make sure the US isn't using it as a mask for undermining a key Chinese oil source.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well if China is Communist and Hugo Chavez is Communist, they would have no problem getting it from Venezuela.

Oh wait, I guess China or Hugo Chavez isn't Communist. In fact, NEITHER are.

[Lunar]

Well if China is Communist and Hugo Chavez is Communist, they would have no problem getting it from Venezuela.

Oh wait, I guess China or Hugo Chavez isn't Communist. In fact, NEITHER are.

What's your point?  I don't get your logic.  Are countries restricted to trading with ideologically similar countries?

[WMS]

I was serious on that post.

China is very edgy about any US action in Sudan.  China doesn't really oppose US humanitarian aid and whatnot, it just wants to make sure the US isn't using it as a mask for undermining a key Chinese oil source.

I, of course, being the evil neoconservative bastard that I am, would screw with them for precisely that reason.

[Lunar]

I was serious on that post.

China is very edgy about any US action in Sudan.  China doesn't really oppose US humanitarian aid and whatnot, it just wants to make sure the US isn't using it as a mask for undermining a key Chinese oil source.

I, of course, being the evil neoconservative bastard that I am, would screw with them for precisely that reason.

Perhaps.  China is essential if we want to operate within the UN though.  We could skip the UN, but it would be more expensive since the UN already has the infrastructure within the country.   The AU is also involved in the country, that might be an easy way to operate within already existing infrastructure as well as                                                 appearing "multilateral."

Sudan really isn't critical to China.   I doubt screwing with them would have much of a significant impact on the Chinese economy.  If you just want to piss China off, there's easier ways to accomplish that , shrug.

Iran would be the ticket to do significant damage to China's oil supply.

[Beet]

We can choke off the entire eastern hemisphere from Middle East oil by blockading the straits of Hormuz and using our bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Krygizstan to prevent oil from moving across Central Asia by land. As for Venezuelan and North Sea oil, we could blockade the straits of Malacca and the Panama canal, hence cutting off Venezuela's supply to any Asian nation. That leaves only Russia, but Russia doesn't have enough oil to feed what China's energy demands would be anyway. These are the benefits of sea power

[Lunar]

We can choke off the entire eastern hemisphere from Middle East oil by blockading the straits of Hormuz and using our bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Krygizstan to prevent oil from moving across Central Asia by land. As for Venezuelan and North Sea oil, we could blockade the straits of Malacca and the Panama canal, hence cutting off Venezuela's supply to any Asian nation. That leaves only Russia, but Russia doesn't have enough oil to feed what China's energy demands would be anyway. These are the benefits of sea power

The only time these things would happen would be if we were at war with China.  I doubt China will continue trading with the United States if we're attempting to starve her economy.  The US economy would collapse, something we could have achived by a direct embargo rather than indirect blockades of sattelite nations.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I was serious on that post.

China is very edgy about any US action in Sudan.  China doesn't really oppose US humanitarian aid and whatnot, it just wants to make sure the US isn't using it as a mask for undermining a key Chinese oil source.

I, of course, being the evil neoconservative bastard that I am, would screw with them for precisely that reason.

that's not neocon at all. I would do the same thing.

[WMS]

I was serious on that post.

China is very edgy about any US action in Sudan.  China doesn't really oppose US humanitarian aid and whatnot, it just wants to make sure the US isn't using it as a mask for undermining a key Chinese oil source.

I, of course, being the evil neoconservative bastard that I am, would screw with them for precisely that reason.

Perhaps.  China is essential if we want to operate within the UN though.  We could skip the UN, but it would be more expensive since the UN already has the infrastructure within the country.   The AU is also involved in the country, that might be an easy way to operate within already existing infrastructure as well as appearing "multilateral."

Sudan really isn't critical to China.   I doubt screwing with them would have much of a significant impact on the Chinese economy.  If you just want to piss China off, there's easier ways to accomplish that , shrug.

Iran would be the ticket to do significant damage to China's oil supply.

China is already blocking signficant action in the Sudan in the UN. The AU would be a better bet, and would look good PR-wise as well. I will note that the U.S. has provided airlift to AU forces.

Still, China seems awfully determined on this, so it must be of some value to them.

And as for Iran, one project at a time.

I, of course, being the evil neoconservative bastard that I am, would screw with them for precisely that reason.

that's not neocon at all. I would do the same thing.

Maybe you're secretly a neocon.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's why I was suggesting that we give China partial control over the humanitarian aid to ease their fears. 

I think I'd support equipping the AU forces in that country with top gear, giving them maybe 500 million dollars for humanitarian relief, and sending a some military "advisors" to make sure that the money goes where we want it.

[Beet]

We can choke off the entire eastern hemisphere from Middle East oil by blockading the straits of Hormuz and using our bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Krygizstan to prevent oil from moving across Central Asia by land. As for Venezuelan and North Sea oil, we could blockade the straits of Malacca and the Panama canal, hence cutting off Venezuela's supply to any Asian nation. That leaves only Russia, but Russia doesn't have enough oil to feed what China's energy demands would be anyway. These are the benefits of sea power

The only time these things would happen would be if we were at war with China.  I doubt China will continue trading with the United States if we're attempting to starve her economy.  The US economy would collapse, something we could have achived by a direct embargo rather than indirect blockades of sattelite nations.

I'm just saying it would be easier at certain chokepoints than trying to cover a 1000-mile coastline, even with satellite technology.

[WMS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's why I was suggesting that we give China partial control over the humanitarian aid to ease their fears. 

I think I'd support equipping the AU forces in that country with top gear, giving them maybe 500 million dollars for humanitarian relief, and sending a some military "advisors" to make sure that the money goes where we want it.

I wonder what China would do with that 'humanitarian aid'? Probably give it to the long-suffering Sudanese military.

And I agree about the AU.