Attempts to separate the South is not a surprise, they fought the Popular Front and its allies in the region and the world, especially the Zionist entity and the United States a long war against the Khartoum government, but I think that the deterioration of the Arab world after the peace treaty between Egypt and the Zionist entity, which was concluded and the order of these effects specifically outline the output Egypt completely from the equation of power, and trim her nails, and loss of ability to distinguish after she finally decided to choose any camp, and completely biased to the detriment of the interests of Egypt and the interests of the nation.
Therefore, the separation of the south had been the target within the objectives of the Treaty of Peace, and was able to Egypt if left to its own power and awareness to thwart these attempts for decades, and it was natural that shows the Naivasha agreement, and that the Sudanese government's position on the extent of their power, regardless of their hopes to remain unified Sudan, and, if the Naivasha agreement was intended by Khartoum to be a ransom for the separation and catalyst to stay in power and wealth, the SPLM has benefited from the conditions provided by the agreement coupled with U.S. pressure on Khartoum, and open the front Darfur and the International Criminal Court; so easy as unscrewing the grip Khartoum to the south, can not find any supervisor of the case difficult to understand the following facts in the Sudanese scene.
The first fact is: is that the secession of southern Sudan is the result of planning Zionist-American in the dismantling of the Arab world, a scheme that will not stop at the Sudan and south; because the separation of the south even under the agreement, the agreement's compliance will lead to the fragmentation of Sudan, and the transition to what else the rest of the Arab States , will not save the secession of southern Sudan, but the return of consciousness to Egypt; to realize what he is trying in all directions and the most dangerous in the Sudan pillar of security and water security in particular.
The second fact: that Washington is planned for the separation and lead international efforts in this direction, under the pretext of respect for the Naivasha agreement, we have seen what took place in the Security Council meeting on the evening of June 14, 2010; where devoted a meeting to discuss the issues of Sudan, he stressed the respect for the Naivasha and partnership of government and holding of the referendum at a time when it was affirming the popular movement that separation is an option.
We have gone beyond the search for the causes and the reasons Washington was committed to the independence of the south from the north or the fragmentation of Sudan; because it is the goal of U.S. Zionist opportunities available to him after all what happened in Egypt were to defend the coherence of the Arab world, and survival.
Strangely enough, the main countries in the international system do not mind separating the south from the north under the pretext of a known, possibly embodied in the present position of the damage to major countries such as Italy, China and Russia.
It is true that the Khartoum regime bears part of the blame, but the pressure and urgency on the chart, and give up the Arab sector and the African conspiracy to make him closer to the investigation.
The third fact: is that the separation had been arranged, and the ruling elite in the south are driving the people of the south, is harmful separation of Sudan, or is his interest? It is harmful also in Egypt, or is it nothing to do with Egypt by even indirectly? If the separation is a challenge to the Government in Khartoum and that it appeared from statements made by al-Bashir does not wish to happen, would have prevented? Is it really means Naivasha that really lead to a separation of the south?
These are legitimate questions is no doubt that the Khartoum government, she responded, but I think if Khartoum wants to prevent the separation without being accused of violating the Abuja Agreement, it is possible in terms of political and legal; that philosophy which was confirmed by the Naivasha agreement is a unit of Sudanese territory, which has been like on the leaders of the national movement, until recently, perhaps as a matter of dissimulation, and that the six-year interim period included the partnership government in Khartoum, and a partnership of wealth with the South; which makes the survival of the south in a united Sudan fruitful, and that this referendum, which did not come by the previous one in all periods of history in the circumstances similar is not intended as a divorce or a marriage, but is intended to show good faith in Khartoum, and the relationship of democracy, on the contrary explain the SPLM this option in the Naivasha agreement that a deadline for Khartoum to convince the South that unity attractive useful, and that the referendum is a means of expression on the feasibility of unit or the option of secession.
In each case, the south part of the body Sudanese, how the arm allows for example to decide their own destiny away from all the other members of the body?!
I think that the referendum with a view to separation inaccurate interpretation of the Naivasha agreement, but the issue is the U.S. plan and the determination of the continental separation of the south, and then break the rest of Sudan, it is to stop the disaster? Aside from some quarters that the government will shoulder the responsibility, and some carrying the insurgency, some of which holds the third international conspiracy.
The potential danger is clear, if there intention to prevent the separation, they are no longer enough, but needs to popular will, Sudanese, Arab and African; to avoid the risk of secession of the south.
Therefore, the separation of the south had been the target within the objectives of the Treaty of Peace, and was able to Egypt if left to its own power and awareness to thwart these attempts for decades, and it was natural that shows the Naivasha agreement, and that the Sudanese government's position on the extent of their power, regardless of their hopes to remain unified Sudan, and, if the Naivasha agreement was intended by Khartoum to be a ransom for the separation and catalyst to stay in power and wealth, the SPLM has benefited from the conditions provided by the agreement coupled with U.S. pressure on Khartoum, and open the front Darfur and the International Criminal Court; so easy as unscrewing the grip Khartoum to the south, can not find any supervisor of the case difficult to understand the following facts in the Sudanese scene.
The first fact is: is that the secession of southern Sudan is the result of planning Zionist-American in the dismantling of the Arab world, a scheme that will not stop at the Sudan and south; because the separation of the south even under the agreement, the agreement's compliance will lead to the fragmentation of Sudan, and the transition to what else the rest of the Arab States , will not save the secession of southern Sudan, but the return of consciousness to Egypt; to realize what he is trying in all directions and the most dangerous in the Sudan pillar of security and water security in particular.
The second fact: that Washington is planned for the separation and lead international efforts in this direction, under the pretext of respect for the Naivasha agreement, we have seen what took place in the Security Council meeting on the evening of June 14, 2010; where devoted a meeting to discuss the issues of Sudan, he stressed the respect for the Naivasha and partnership of government and holding of the referendum at a time when it was affirming the popular movement that separation is an option.
We have gone beyond the search for the causes and the reasons Washington was committed to the independence of the south from the north or the fragmentation of Sudan; because it is the goal of U.S. Zionist opportunities available to him after all what happened in Egypt were to defend the coherence of the Arab world, and survival.
Strangely enough, the main countries in the international system do not mind separating the south from the north under the pretext of a known, possibly embodied in the present position of the damage to major countries such as Italy, China and Russia.
It is true that the Khartoum regime bears part of the blame, but the pressure and urgency on the chart, and give up the Arab sector and the African conspiracy to make him closer to the investigation.
The third fact: is that the separation had been arranged, and the ruling elite in the south are driving the people of the south, is harmful separation of Sudan, or is his interest? It is harmful also in Egypt, or is it nothing to do with Egypt by even indirectly? If the separation is a challenge to the Government in Khartoum and that it appeared from statements made by al-Bashir does not wish to happen, would have prevented? Is it really means Naivasha that really lead to a separation of the south?
These are legitimate questions is no doubt that the Khartoum government, she responded, but I think if Khartoum wants to prevent the separation without being accused of violating the Abuja Agreement, it is possible in terms of political and legal; that philosophy which was confirmed by the Naivasha agreement is a unit of Sudanese territory, which has been like on the leaders of the national movement, until recently, perhaps as a matter of dissimulation, and that the six-year interim period included the partnership government in Khartoum, and a partnership of wealth with the South; which makes the survival of the south in a united Sudan fruitful, and that this referendum, which did not come by the previous one in all periods of history in the circumstances similar is not intended as a divorce or a marriage, but is intended to show good faith in Khartoum, and the relationship of democracy, on the contrary explain the SPLM this option in the Naivasha agreement that a deadline for Khartoum to convince the South that unity attractive useful, and that the referendum is a means of expression on the feasibility of unit or the option of secession.
In each case, the south part of the body Sudanese, how the arm allows for example to decide their own destiny away from all the other members of the body?!
I think that the referendum with a view to separation inaccurate interpretation of the Naivasha agreement, but the issue is the U.S. plan and the determination of the continental separation of the south, and then break the rest of Sudan, it is to stop the disaster? Aside from some quarters that the government will shoulder the responsibility, and some carrying the insurgency, some of which holds the third international conspiracy.
The potential danger is clear, if there intention to prevent the separation, they are no longer enough, but needs to popular will, Sudanese, Arab and African; to avoid the risk of secession of the south.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق