Archive for the ‘SUD’ Category

ANDREY ARESHEV: Carving Up Sudan

January 21, 2011 Comments off

The following analysis is reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation. (Bold font appears in original version.)

Carving Up Sudan
©  Andrey Areshev
Source:  Strategic Culture Foundation
January 21, 2011

A week-long referendum over what is becoming the biggest divorce between African nations in a decade ended in Sudan on January 1. The country’s conflict along ethnic and religious lines unfolded for ages. Sudan is split into two distinct parts by the so-far virtual border between the Arab-dominated North and the tribal South where much of the African population was – perhaps without genuine immersion into the new faith – led to convert to Christianity by Western missionaries. The division reflecting an array of ethnic, religious, and geographical traits recurred at various phases of the evolution of the largest African country. In the colonial epoch, Great Britain’s policy was built on isolating South Sudan from its Muslim central and northern parts, thus de facto programming further tensions. The struggle over the future nature of the border between Sudan’s South and North – the South could continue to exist in a semi-autonomous mode or move on to an independent status – provoked endless government crises the country (an Arab journalist wrote that Sudan’s South was a cemetery for its politicians) and, much worse than that, took hundreds of thousands of lives.

On the eve of the referendum, Khartoum attempted – even at the cost of tolerating the growth of separatism in South Kurdufan, Blue Nile, and Darfur – to partially break out of the international isolation by demonstrating goodwill. At the same time, Washington sought to take advantage of the situation to bleed Khartoum seen in the U.S. as Africa’s Islamist stronghold and the key obstacle in the way of the U.S. access to the region’s oil. In Sudan, the exploration of oil resources is left to France and China, and until recently Sudan sustained the atypical pattern of supplying energy to China, India, and Malaysia, but not to the U.S., the E.U., and Japan. Washington regards the resource-rich part of Africa to the south of the Sahara as a strategic region with enormous economic potential. The U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM) was established in 2007 and functioned as an element of the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) but became fully independent in just a year.

What contours will the situation in Sudan have following the referendum? It should be taken into account that Sudan’s South lacks such factors normally propping up statehood identities as, for example, a language common to all of its population. The South is a conglomerate of some 600 markedly disunited tribes and small ethnic groups mostly speaking their own dialects. Several clashes between the otherwise close Nuer and Dinka groups over livestock and pastures were reported in 2009. The smaller Nuer group claims to be chronically underrepresented in the preeminently Dinka Southern government. No doubt, infighting in Sudan over the distribution of humanitarian aid and energy revenues will get a boost in the nearest future. The ruling coalition – the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) – will disintegrate into the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk and other ethnic factions. Considering the militant character of many of the tribes, South Sudan’s reversion to armed confrontation seems more than likely.

The official Juba will be habitually blaming the escalation on the North, but the net result on the horizon is a deep conflict between the sovereign parts of what used to be – at least nominally – a single country. Issues to spark hostilities will be readily available, ownership of Abyei’s impressive oil resources clearly being the biggest bone of contention. The ethnically mixed region where Dinka, the African group, holds key positions and the Arab Muslims are a minority will likely draw intense rivalry between Washington, Paris, and Beijing. It is worth noting that the area’s riches are not limited to oil, its other attractions counting deposits of iron, copper, chromium, zinc, wolfram, silver, gold, and even uranium…

Both Khartoum (which seems doomed to a surge of Muslim radicalism in the aftermath of the referendum) and Juba will have no difficulty finding allies eager to provide various forms of assistance including arms supplies. It is generally clear at the moment which players will intervene on the respective sides. Oddly enough, Beijing will surely try to gain footholds in both Khartoum and Juba, inevitably inducing a schism in South Sudan. Information surfaced that Juba is already struggling to get on the U.N. list of the neediest countries entitled to systematic humanitarian infusions, but the U.N. can as well be expected to forward the problem to the African Union, additionally contributing to the conflict.

In any case, a new epicenter of protracted conflict in Africa is in the making, and only the interests of Western and Chinese energy companies will – for a limited period of time – be freezing Sudan’s slide into total chaos as it happened in Rwanda and Somalia. Sharing his vision of the not-so-distant future, South Sudan’s leader Salva Kiir Mayardit bluntly opined that the crumbling of Sudan, formerly Africa’s largest country, would only initially lead to the independence of South Sudan, but then spin into the independence of East Sudan, Darfur, etc.

The key circumstance in the context is that the natural resources of South Sudan, however impressive, are landlocked, while the corresponding oil pipelines run across the North which also owns seaports and other pertinent infrastructures. Consequently, South and North Sudan will remain economically interdependent regardless of the independence of the former. Moreover, some 1-2 million southerners whose interests obviously failed to factor into the referendum’s outcome currently reside in the North and are tightly integrated into its economy and administrative machinery.

A number of analysts contemplated the preservation of the unity of Sudan balanced by a broader autonomy for its South. In fact, this was the underlying concept of the constitution Sudan adopted several years ago, but the divisive tendencies largely fanned by powerful external players – U.S. President B. Obama, for example, described the independence vote in Sudan as nothing less than historical in a recent NYT paper – eventually prevailed.

Strictly speaking, Russia has no vested interests in Sudan. Russian energy giants will hardly deem it feasible to compete over the energy resources of an African country – or, rather, of two African countries – where the U.S. and China are already locked in an intense rivalry (and which India might yet be eying). Burdened with persistent disputes with the West over Georgia and Transdnistria, Moscow explainably preferred to show some solidarity with the West in dealing with a region relatively unimportant to Russia, especially since the referendum’s bottom-line in Sudan was 100% predictable in the light of both the country’s entrenched South-North discord and the international community’s interference which evoked similarities with the Kosovo case.

The U.S. has for two decades been explicitly and implicitly supporting separatism in South Sudan, a region strategic from the standpoint of oil production and transit in Africa. The referendum to which the cornered Khartoumconsented fit neatly into the wider U.S. policy framework. Moscow’s support for the secession of South Sudan via an unconvincing referendum may yet prove counterproductive. A selective approach to precedents, the international acceptance of games around political metaphors, and the preponderance of pseudo-humanitarian rhetoric can some day enable the forces taking advantage of inter-ethnic discord to present Russia with additional problems in the North Caucasus.


Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong  

Categories: Caucasus, RUS, SUD, UK, USA

The Balkanization of Sudan: The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa

January 16, 2011 Comments off

The following commentary is reprinted with permission from Global Research.

The Balkanization of Sudan:  The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa
©  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Source:  Global Research
January 16, 2011

Sudan is a diverse nation and a country that represents the plurality of Africa through various tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet the unity of Sudan is in question, while there is talk of unifying nations and of one day creating a United States of Africa through the African Union.

The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.

The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European Union.

The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan

A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could justify this.

In regards to Sudan, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work. One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S. sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and Ethiopia are casually ignored.

Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and motivated by Khartoum’s ties to Chinese oil interests.

Sudan supplies China with a substantial amount of oil. The geo-political rivalry between China and the U.S. for control of African and global energy supplies is the real reason for the chastisement of Sudan and the strong support shown by the U.S., the E.U., and Israeli officials for the seccession of South Sudan.

It is in this context that Chinese interests have been attacked. This includes the October 2006 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in Defra, Kordofan by the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) militia.

Distorting the Violence in Sudan

While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been manipulated and distorted.

The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic interests. If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues, which have been fuelled by outside forces.

Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training, financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum’s shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese government by the U.S., the E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving the objective of dividing Sudan.

It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate.

This is a re-enactment of the same procedures used by the U.S. and E.U. in other regions where countries have either formally or informally been divided and their economies restructured by foreign-installed proxy governments under the presence of foreign troops. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia (through the creation of several new republics) and in Anglo-American occupied Iraq (through soft balkanization via a calculated form of federalism aimed at establishing a weak and de-centralized state). Foreign troops and a foreign presence have provided the cloud for state dismantlement and the foreign takeover of state infrastructure, resources, and economies.

The Question of Identity in Sudan

While the Sudanese state has been portrayed as being oppressive towards the people in South Sudan, it should be noted that both the referendum and the power sharing structure of the Sudanese government portray something else. The power sharing agreement in Khartoum between Omar Al-Basher, the president of Sudan, includes the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and the President of South Sudan.

The issue of ethnicity has also been brought to the forefront of the regional or ethno-regional nationalism that has been cultivated in South Sudan. The cleavage in Sudan between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese has been presented to the outside world as the major force for the regional nationalism motivating calls for statehood in South Sudan. Over the years this self-differentiation has been diffused and socialized into the collective psyche of the people of South Sudan.

Yet, the difference between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese are not that great. The Arab identity of so-called Sudanese Arabs is based primarily on their use of the Arabic language. Let us even assume that both Sudanese ethnic identities are totally separate. It is still widely known in Sudan that both groups are very mixed. The other difference between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan is that Islam predominates in the rest of Sudan and not in South Sudan. Both groups are still deeply tied to one another, except for a sense of self-identification, which they are well in their rights to have. Yet, it is these different identities that have been played upon by local leaders and outside powers.

Neglect of the local population of different regions by the elites of Sudan is what the root cause of anxiety or animosity between people in South Sudan and the Khartoum government are really based on and not differences between so-called Arab and so-called African Sudanese.

Regional favouritism has been at work in South Sudan.

The issue is also compounded by social class. The people of South Sudan believe that their economic status and standards of living will improve if they form a new republic. The government in Khartoum and non-Southerner Sudanese have been used as the scapegoats for the economic miseries of the people of South Sudan and their perceptions of relative poverty by the local leadership of South Sudan. In reality, the local officials of South Sudan will not improve the living standards of the people of South Sudan, but maintain a klepocratic status quo. [1]

The Long-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World

In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were also one country in practice until 1956.

Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as exploiting the South Sudanese.

After the British invasion of Egypt and Sudan, the British also managed to keep their troops stationed in Sudan. Even while working to divide Sudan from Egypt, the British worked to create internal differentations between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan. This was done through the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, from 1899 to 1956, which forced Egypt to share Sudan with Britain after the Mahdist Revolts. Eventually the Egyptian government would come to refuse to recognize the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium as legal. Cairo would continously ask the British to end their illegal military occupation of Sudan and to stop preventing the re-integration of Egypt and Sudan, but the British would refuse.

It would be under the presence of British troops that Sudan would declare itself independent. This is what lead to the emergence of Sudan as a separate Arab and African state from Egypt. Thus, the balkanization process started with the division of Sudan from Egypt.

The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East

The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon Plan is to ensure Israeli superority through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called “After Iraq: What Will the Middle East Look Like?” [2] In the Goldberg article a map of the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutentant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military’s Armed Forces Journal in 2006.

It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg’s article, Eriteria is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.

In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. This has been achieved through the soft balkanization of federalism in Iraq, which has allowed the Kurdistan Regional Government to negotiate with foreign oil corporations on its own. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which is discussed in the Yinon Plan.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exasparate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. The division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means of balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan is to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze.

In this regard, the Hariri Assasination and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) have been playing out to the favour of Israel in creating internal divisions within Lebanon and fuelling politically-motivated sectarianism. This is why Tel Aviv has been very vocal about the STL and very supportive of it. In a clear sign of the politized nature of the STL and its ties to geo-politics, the U.S. and Britain have also given the STL millions of dollars.

The Links between the Attacks on the Egyptian Copts and the South Sudan Referendum

From Iraq to Egypt, Christians in the Middle East have been under attack, while tensions between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims are being fuelled. The attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria on January 1, 2011 or the subsequent Coptic protests and riots should not be looked at in isolation. [3] Nor should the subsequent fury of Coptic Christians expressed towards Muslims and the Egyptian government. These attacks on Christians are tied to the broader geo-political goals of the U.S., Britain, Israel, and NATO in the Middle East and Arab World.

The Yinon Plan stipulates that if Egypt were divided that Sudan and Libya would also be balkanized and weakened. In this context, there is a link between Sudan and Egypt. According to the Yinon Plan, the Copts or Christians of Egypt, which are a large minority in Egypt, are the key to the balkanization of the Arab states in North Africa. Thus, the Yinon Plan states that the creation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt (South Egypt) and Christian-Muslim tensions within Egyptian are vital steps to balkanizing Sudan and North Africa.

The attacks on Christians in the Middle East are part of intelligence operations intended to divide the Middle East and North Africa. The timing of the mounting attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt and the build-up to the referendum in South Sudan are no coincidence. The events in Sudan and Egypt are linked to one another and are part of the project to balkanize the Arab World and the Middle East. They must also be studied in conjunction with the Yinon Plan and with the events in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as in relation to the efforts to create a Shiite-Sunni divide.

The Outside Connections of the SPLM, SSLA, and Militias in Darfour

As in the case of Sudan, outside interference or intervention has been used to justify the oppression of domestic opposition. Despite its corruption, Khartoum has been under siege for refusing to merely be a proxy.

Sudan is justified in suspecting foreign troops and accusing the U.S., Britain, and Israel of eroding the national solidarity of Sudan. For example, Israel has sent arms to the opposition groups and separatist movements in Sudan. This was done through Ethiopia for years until Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and Eritreans. Afterwards Israeli weapons entered South Sudan from Kenya. From South Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the political arm of the SSLA, would transfer weapons to the militias in Darfur. The governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), have also been working closely with the U.S., Britain, and Israel in East Africa.

The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition and separatist groups is significant. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel and its members and supporters regularly visit Israel. It is due to this that Khartoum capitulated and removed the Sudanese passport restriction on visiting Israel in late-2009 to satisfy the SPLM. [4] Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that South Sudan will recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.

The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that separatist groups in Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:

[Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced establishment of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement office in Israel, a press release said today.

“After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the supporters of SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of SPLM in Israel.” Said [sic.] a statement received by email from Tel Aviv signed by the SLMP secretariat in Israel.

The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open in any country including Israel. It also indicated that there are around 400 SPLM supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur said last week he opened an office in Tel Aviv. [5]

The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan

What happened to the dreams of a united Africa or a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses as has African unity. The Arab World and Africa have consistenly been balkanized.

Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World are on the U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.

The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the U.S., Britain, and Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and the Middle East.

The resulting process of “democratization” leading up to the January 2011 referendum serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true national sovereignty in South Sudan.


[1]  A kleptocracy is a government or/and state that works to protect, extend, deepen, continue, and entrench the wealth of the ruling class.
[2]  Jeffrey Goldberg, “After Iraq: What Will The Middle East Look Like?” The Atlantic, January/February 2008.
[3]  William Maclean, “Copts on global Christmas alert after Egypt bombing”, Reuters, January 5, 2011.
[4]  “Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport”, Sudan Tribune, October 3, 2009:
[5]  “Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel – statement”, Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008:


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong  


Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) Statement On South Sudan Referendum

January 14, 2011 Comments off

The following is an official statement from the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF).

O.N.L.F Statement On South Sudan Referendum
Source:  Ogaden National Liberation Front
January 14, 2011  02:35

In 1981 the OAU committee mediating between Somalia and Ethiopia regarding the conflict in the Ogaden, declared that the Ogaden is part of Ethiopia. That decision was based on the 1964 resolution of the OAU promulgated in Cairo regarding the sanctity of the African borders left by colonialism. That unjust resolution in no way took into account the aspirations of the people of Ogaden and wrongly portrayed the Ogaden conflict as a border dispute between two States when it is in fact a conflict borne from the desire of the Ogaden people for self-determination.

Despite the AU [African Union] turning a blind eye to the plight of the Ogaden people and its lack of interest in addressing the root causes of the Ogaden conflict, the decision to allow the people of the South Sudan to take a referendum to decide their destiny is a great day for all people denied their rights to self-determination in Africa. President Bashir of Sudan is to be commended for agreeing to this bold and visionary step forward in the interest of justice and peace

This vote represents a precedent affirming that there is no longer a moral or so-called legal basis for denying the Ogaden people their legitimate rights to self-determination and that the AU bears a direct responsibility to address protracted conflicts which require a comprehensive political solution especially when those conflicts are based on the legitimate aspirations of African peoples to achieve

The fact of the matter is that the Ogaden people will achieve their rights through a protracted peoples’ struggle whether the current or future Ethiopian regimes like it or not. It would be appropriate for the AU and peace loving nations to be on the right side of history and address the Ogaden conflict with the same energy and interest afforded the South Sudan conflict. The AU should not wait for Genocide to take on unimaginable proportions before engaging itself in this conflict. The fact that the Ethiopian regime is engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ogaden is well documented. Ogaden warrants AU intervention now.

Ogaden National Liberation Front (O.N.L.F)


Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong  

Categories: ETH, OGA, SUD

SUDAN: A Military Statement from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM): Alliance of Resistance Forces (ARF) Score Major Victory at Dar El Salam Near El Fashir

December 23, 2010 Comments off

The following is an official statement from Sudan’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). (Underlined emphasis added.)

Alliance of Resistance Forces (ARF) Score Major Victory at Dar El Salam Near El Fashir
Source:  Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
December 23, 2010  10:38 pm

A Military Statement

ARF gallant forces scored a major victory against GoS [Government of Sudan] army at Dar El Salam, 60km south of El Fashir, capital of Darfur. The site of the battle is only 35k away from Shangili Tobayi whose population were bombed out of their homes in the last two weeks. The battle took place this morning, Thursday, December 23, 2010.

GoS forces consisted of two battalions coming from El Fashir and Shearia and were widely advertised in government media as surrounding JEM army in the area for a final assault. The two government forces have been terrorising the population since the visit of Governor of North Darfur, Kibir two weeks ago. Over the past few days, these forces have burnt down 6 towns, turning their populations into IDPs.

For the first time, JEM troops fought shoulder to shoulder with forces belonging to Minni Minawi, Abdel Wahid Nur and others in line with the newly formed Alliance of Resistance Forces.

Following a fierce but unequal engagement, enemy troops fled the battlefield and were pursued by our forces inside Dar El Salam.

Our forces gained 28 vehicles and one artillery truck and destroyed substantial military hardware belonging to GoS. Names of captured enemy soldiers will be released in the coming few days.

Our forces lost three soldiers with eight others injured.

We hope this overwhelming victory sends a clear message to [Sudanese president] Al Bashir to think seriously about the offer of cessation of hostilities currently under negotiation in the Doha Venue.

Long live our struggle for justice

Lt. General Ali Alwafi
Alliance of Resistance Forces


IntelTrends republishes selected resistance statements so that readers can access different perspectives on current affairs, political and military issues.

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong

Categories: SUD

SUDAN: A Military Statement from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM): JEM Shoots Down Mig29 in North Kordofan

November 10, 2010 Comments off

The following is an official statement from Sudan’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). This statement, which shows a preparation date of Nov. 8, 2010, was distributed on Nov. 9, 2010.

JEM Celebrates Another Victory in North Darfur
Source:  Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
November 9, 2010  4:45 pm

A Military Statement from JEM

JEM forces shot down a Mig29 Jet belonging to GoS [Government of Sudan] near Majrur, 80k North-East of Al Obeid, capital of the State of North Kordofan. The incident took place today, November 8th at 4pm local time. The downed jet fighter participated in aerial bombardment which has been going on since the government lot to JEM in the area November 5th. Intense aerial attacks have so far failed to halt steady advancement of JEM towards its target.

News of government loss of its advanced plane came hours after JEM released names of 17 POWs captured a day before at Kornoi-Boba battle in North Darfur. Names of POWS released in Arabic will be made available to English readers in a separate communiqué.

Long live our struggle for justice and equality.

Lt. General Ali Alwafi
Military Spokesperson


IntelTrends republishes selected resistance statements so that readers can access different perspectives on current affairs, political and military issues.

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong

Categories: SUD

SUDAN: A Military Statement from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM): JEM Celebrates Another Victory in North Darfur

November 8, 2010 Comments off

The following is an official statement from Sudan’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). This statement, which shows a preparation date of Nov. 6, 2010, was distributed on Nov. 7, 2010.

JEM Celebrates Another Victory in North Darfur
Source:  Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
November 7, 2010  12:19 am

A Military Statement from JEM

Today, November 6th, GoS [Governmentt of Sudan] suffered its second defeat in 24 hours following its loss, yesterday in Kordofan. This time, GoS received a crushing blow at the hands of JEM at Darma, 25k North-East of Kornoi, close to the Doba Well in the State of North Darfur. The GoS Kornoi Battalion consisted of three Mobile Units mounted on 210 vehicles. The battalion came with a clear evil and inhumane instruction: To destroy and/or occupy all water centres and depopulate the entire area. Aerial bombardment of water centres has been employed throughout the last week.

It took less than one hour for our invincible forces to prove yet again the naivety of the security anchored New Strategy for Darfur and the futility of forcing an army to fight for an unjust cause. Within hours, the well-equipped Kornoi Battalion disintegrated in total disarray and fled the battlefield leaving behind over 100 corpses.

Overlooking destroyed vehicles, or gallant forces gained the following:

20 vehicles mounted with Doshka Guns
7 vehicles equipped with BTO4
3 vehicles mounted with SPG9 Guns
2 vehicles with surface to air quadruple barrel guns
10 trucks loaded with ammunitions, fuel and other logistical supplies.

Score of war prisoners including high-ranking officers and who will be declared and handed over to relevant authorities in line with international conventions.

JEM salutes GoS soldiers who deserted the field without fighting and affirms its principle and clear instruction to all JEM soldiers not to fire at nonthreatening enemy soldiers.

Long live our struggle for justice and equality.

Lt. General Ali Alwafi
Military Spokesperson


IntelTrends republishes selected resistance statements so that readers can access different perspectives on current affairs, political and military issues.

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong

Categories: SUD

SUDAN: A Military Statement from the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM): JEM Scores a Major Victory in Kordofan

November 6, 2010 Comments off

The following is an official statement from Sudan’s Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

JEM Scores a Major Victory in Kordofan
Source:  Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)
November 5, 2010  9:28 pm

A Military Statement from JEM

This morning, November 5th 2010, Khartoum’s army received its second defeat within 48 hours. Government assault code named Kordofan Mobile Force engaged our forces at Hamari, south of Ghibaisha town in North Kordofan. As usual, the government force and which consisted of Security and army troops mounted on over 147 vehicles proved no match for our gallant army. They fled the battlefield leaving behind numerous fatalities and war prisoners whose names will be announced soon. JEM gained 35 vehicles with 12 more totally destroyed.

JEM troops too suffered some minor injuries and few fatalities.

JEM regrets loss of lives and sends its condolences to families of all enemy soldiers who did not survive the battle. It further invites all members of government forces to rebel and join hands with JEM against the criminal junta of Khartoum. JEM takes no comfort in seeing so many fellow countrymen and women callously lured by the genocidaires into early graves.

Long live our struggle for justice and equality.

Lt. General Ali Alwafi
Military Spokesperson


IntelTrends republishes selected resistance statements so that readers can access different perspectives on current affairs, political and military issues.

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong

Categories: SUD