Andrew Natsuious: The Hackneying of the Respected Ones!

In his essay dated 24.8. 2012 in the New York Times, Andrew Natsuious conveyed the “good news” that there are more wars coming in Sudan. He sent this gift, just days before the 2nd  of September, the anniversary of Karrari Battle. Andrew Natsuious was the peace envoy of President Bush to Sudan,(2006-2007). He was the first ever to declare in 2010 the American policy aiming at the secession of South Sudan. In a debate in George Town University, he frankly said that America aimed at seceding the South of Sudan by 2011. According to Naivasha agreement it was the result of the referendum, and not the American policy that should decide the secession of the south or otherwise. That declared American policy was a flat violation of Naivasha, which was built on the assumption of a united Sudan with two regimes. What Natsuious said in George Town was later elaborated by Suzan Rice in Juba, 22, 5, 2011 when she met with Bagan Amom and Deng Alor and others. She said that they had tried hard to  dismantle the Ingaz regime, “but we failed”! So we went to the secession option, she said. She said that all the American efforts were dedicated to weakening the influence of the Islamic Movement in Sudan. It is worth mentioning that the American administration consistently denied working for toppling the Sudanese regime. Natsuious had criticized the ICC memo against President Bashir and said that it had nothing to do with law. He also criticized the American administration for failing to fulfill its promises to Sudan. This man who was a peace envoy was in fact a “war envoy.” In his  book, he “confessed” that he spent third of his time in arming the SPLA. After the secession of the South he urged the American government to arm the GOSS in the same way it arms Israel and in a way the military balance should be in favor of the South. In a meeting in Juba (2.5,2012) with top South officials, the deputy American ambassador confirmed that the US targeted the Sudanese army and stressed what he called the necessity of the “restructuring” of the Khartoum regime with all political, economical and military means!  He also pointed to strengthening the war regions in the boarder zones through military equipment and survey. He said that they should maintain the presence of the SPLM troops in the Blue Nile and South Kurdufan and support the “Revolutionary Front” to inflict heavy losses on the Sudanese army. He called for creating “liberated zones” without depending on the GOSS. The American diplomat called for sending more military advisors to train all the anti Khartoum insurgents to stir the internal front. Based on these backgrounds and facts, Andrew Nastuious  wrote his above mentioned essay in an unprecedented phenomenon of political hackneying and as if he did not know before hand the facts of a war that continued in Sudan for 23 years. More than any one else, he was quite aware of the reality and details of the American role in Sudan as per sponsoring and financing that war. The former American minister of defense, Colin Powel admitted giving that finance of one billion dollars. He disclosed that finance in an essay he wrote in The Los Angles Times. Natsuious also knows about the role of the White House in contracting with military companies (like Black Water) to arm the SPLA so that it can reach all Sudanese targets. In a hypocrite gesture, Natsusious condemned the ICC memo against President Bashir. He avoided pointing to the fact that (188) countries and (21) international organizations had demanded the cancellation of the ICC memo against President Bashir. He said that the Sudanese government was subjected to an assault from (60,000) fighters. But he was not brave enough to declare that those (54,000) soldiers were nobody but SPLA rebel soldiers who were supposed to withdraw Southwards simultaneously with the withdrawal of the Sudanese army from the Blue Nile and South Kurdufan, according to the CPA. The SPLA is still keeping its troops in Sudan. Natsusiois also failed to confess the failure of the American policy in isolating Sudan. In spite of the isolation policy against Sudan, the country hosted three summit conferences, the Arab, the African and Pacific. The Sudan gained the absolute support of the Non-Allied summit also.  He also failed to notice that the ICC memo against Bashir had turned him from just a President to a national hero, contrary to the American wish. Natsusious pointed to the demonstrations against the uplifting of the fuel  subsidy, but again failed to mention the American planning and support of those demonstrations. The American journalist, Eric Derister said that when looking closely at those demonstrations, one will notice that they were the fruits of a carefully designed plot which used local political parties, social organizations and western financers. He said that a limited group in Khartoum University demonstrated against the subsidy uplifting among other demands, but opportunist groups soon used them to execute their won wider agenda. The writer believes that those agenda were matching with the geo-political interests of the US and the West which aim at overthrowing the regime, without ignoring the grievances of the demonstrators. Derister asked for discovering the ways those demonstrations were stolen. But it is very interesting to notice that Natsusious in his New York Times essay “pretended” not to understand what Derister wanted to explain about the role of the American National Fund for spreading of Democracy in financing opposition groups and anti government politicians in Sudan. Natsusious must know that this Fund is sponsored and financed by the State Department. He must know that those groups are being used to stir troubles, hoping to topple the regime. He “hailed” what he called the “failure” of the agricultural season and the rise in food stuff prices, but he did not find a word in favor of Merowe Dam and the completion of elevation of Rusairis Dam. He failed to assimilate that the change in agricultural plans and administrations will eventually change the balance. He of course failed to see that the mining activities, especially in gold has defeated the American conspiracy which aimed at  collapsing Sudan through the stoppage of transporting the South oil through the Sudanese pipelines. But the miscalculations of Washington and its spy Roger Winter, the advisor of Salva Kiir reflected that it was the government of SPLM and not Sudan who paid the price. The SPLM government is now at stake and is going to be wiped out by economical collapse, exactly as the World Bank had predicted. It will eventually be dumped in the dustbin of history! The essay about Sudan of Andrew Natsusious is saturated with political hackneying. It does not fit, neither match with a respected academician, or a sober-minded politician.  It reflects his deep wishes to play a certain role in the coming American President in case Romney wins! Natsusious plays with the Sudanese cause and at the expense of the clear facts of that cause. Natsusious, who is an activist in Romney campaign is looking for a new role in the White House. Maybe who knows!