as the world abandonment of Darfur, continues undeterred in retrospect, to pour his wrath and fury upon President Obama and his current former envoy to Sudan; Princeton Lyman and Air Force Major-General (ret.) Scott Gration respectively, holding them responsible for the inevitable eclipse of the-politically-woven - Darfur momentum in the world media. He desperately tries to bend the neck of truth, as he attributes the evident recess in the momentum, solely to President Obama's purportedly disconnection of Darfur from the key bilateral issues between Washington and Khartoum.
By doing so Mr. Eric Reeves, tend to sing from the same song sheet of his Israeli benefactors, whose vilification and smearing campaign against President Obama himself, has transcended the periphery of merely calling him an anti-Semite and hostile to Israel, to dramatically climax to the level of prompting the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times for instance, with no qualms about the consequences, to publish an opinion column seemingly suggesting that Israel might be wise to assassinate him (President Obama).
Mr. Reeves tries as usual to dwarf and discredit years of perseverance and sincere efforts of both the Sudanese government and regional mediation, which automatically resulted in the current levels of peace and stability enjoyed and celebrated in almost all Darfur states. Besides, he deliberately ignores the fact that lie has no legs, and the international community shall sooner of later, realize that so- called genocide in Darfur nothing than a typical manipulation of intelligence and crafting of TV segments, in a replica of the scenario and propaganda which paved the way for the infamous war on Iraq. In fact, today and due to the over-prevalence of propaganda and facts twisting in western press, public’s confidence in these institutions has been irreparably damaged.
As Peter Vanderwicken puts it in his article; Why the News Are Not the Truth, says “The news media and the government are entwined in a vicious circle of mutual manipulation, mythmaking, and self-interest. Journalists need crises to dramatize news, and government officials need to appear to be responding to crises. Too often, the crises are not really crises but joint fabrications. ”
Taking into account - inter alia- the fact that even African regional organizations such as (ICGLR) has already classified Sudanese holdout rebel groups as terrorists and negative forces, calling on member states to work together to combat and eradicate them, US government - though belatedly- was in its right mind and the right side of history, when it classified without equivocation, the remnants anti-Khartoum rebel groups, still illegally harbored by Juba, and likewise of the isolated faction of Abdul Wahid al Nour, as perennial problem for international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan.
On the other hand, and in the aftermath of the US Presidential elections, and despite the fact that, the foreign policy of President-elect-Trump, is still a collection of confused and random rhetoric, which he - as anticipated by many political analysts- has already started to change bit by bit, at least to silence the criticism that he is not ready for the presidency, however, and as Terror continues to threat and looms across the world, Trump’s views on combatting terrorism and anti-refugee themes shall definitely remain his core or central focus. Likewise and based on his very recent ( disciplined) statements, his foreign policy will bring a realist focus on US national interests and rejection of costly US engagement abroad ( America first).
Taking all that into consideration, and seeing the writing on the wall, Mr. Eric Reeves' latest articles, by all accounts, tended to trifle with the feasibility of the latest package of demands submitted by the so- called Enough Project to the United States President-elect Donald Trump, demanding among others, new economic sanctions to be imposed against Sudan and flight embargo. By the same token Mr. Reeves stultified the statement of Walid Faris, the latter made upon meeting some Darfuri delegation, purportedly consoling them that there would be no lifting of economic sanctions against Sudan. In fact Reeves goes to describe Faris, as a man without a significant political profile, and with questionable credentials.
On the contrary, Mr. Reeves draws a gloomy picture for the future“ Save Darfur Coalition” and its tentacles during Trump's presidency , signaling perhaps that the worst is yet to come; Reeves predicts that Trump would be eager to assist the U.S. intelligence community in its effort to push U.S. Sudan policy further in the direction of accommodating Khartoum by whatever means necessary to generate better counter-terrorism intelligence, in the footsteps of some leading European countries which Reeves himself heavily lashed out for what he calls; cruel and callous policy of rapprochement with Khartoum.
According to Mr. Reeves' grey-tinted glasses; being black skinned African Muslim, the people of Darfur shall offer nothing of interest to the Trump administration, when he says “ Trump’s racism, his xenophobia—extending to a virulently anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric—and his stunning deficit and ignorance of world affairs to the extent that he (Trump) probably couldn’t locate Darfur on the map. Darfur and Sudan as a whole would suffer greatly from policies guided by ignorance and hatred. ”
Eric Reeves' two decades of propaganda warfare against Khartoum, has apparently Stripped him of one of the most important principles of journalism; ‘objectivity’. His extended squabble with Khartoum, has blindly turned into a sort of personal spiteful vendetta; whatever good befalls Khartoum grieves him, and whatever misfortune overtakes it rejoices him. That may explain why and irrespective to the facts on the ground, the very idea of a potential rapprochement between Khartoum and Washington, Europe, or even Sudan’s regional surrounding, as has been elucidated earlier, ostensibly eats his heart out. His appetite and lust for all that may hurt Khartoum knows no border!
Hence, it was not surprising that Reeves hastens to pick up the gauntlet and to champion ferocious campaign despitefully touting and disseminating the – the new seasonal collection- of farcical and based-less accusations of Amnesty International; that Khartoum used chemical weapons in Darfur, which was by and large, a desperate and futile attempt to restore a lost momentum and the yearning to bring Darfur issue back into the limelight, in a desperate attempts to sustain an already staggering source of ego and credentials if not livelihood.
Set-backs continue to mar Mr. Reeves anti-Sudan's intrigues; It became quite evident that, the Amnesty’s report against the Sudan was yet another comedy of errors, which necessarily failed to attract international audience. Reeves himself admitted; all signatory nations to the CWC whose political support is essential to the awaited investigation, appeared to be weak or non-existent. In fact, member states’ contempt towards the said politicized and despicable report, has climaxed in the re-election of the Sudan in the very Executive Council of the (OPCW).
Typically, the shrapnel of deep hatred, Reeves nurtured over the years against Khartoum spare none; he accuses UNAMID of corruption and deception, simply because, being the most credible force on the ground in Darfur, UNAMID opted to tell the truth, testifying that it has seen no evidence of chemical weapons use—none whatsoever. To be fair here, on should admit here that Reeves’ explosion in anger this time was somewhat justified; as the timely testimony of UNAMID checkmated and discredited the very foundation of the Amnesty report, turning it into a complete trash.
Nevertheless, again in his mad pursuit to harm the government of the Sudan, Reeves seems to be ready to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds; having bet on a wrong horse (Amnesty report) would not deter him to continue spewing his malice and venom against Khartoum; This time taking advantage of the public outrage emanating from the Khartoum’s latest austerity measures, which Khartoum has described and justified as sin qua non, to avoid a total collapse of the national economy.
Reeves was in the right time and place, joining the chorus of opportunists, wearing the mantle of supporters of the so-called December 19 civil disobedience day, dedicating his blog and long expertise for mobilization and incitement to drum up maximum international support for the movement. Apart from the perhaps good intentions of other supporters here and there, Reeves was definitely driven by one single fixation; how best to instrument the new show-down, to serve his inner purpose; to hamper or pre-empt Khartoum's galvanizing rapprochement with Europe and the United States.
As usual Reeves descends into the gutter “If the Obama administration remains silent, it will be complicit in the large-scale bloodshed that looks increasingly likely come Monday.” In his ivory tower, the doom-wisher has been passionately waiting to see rivers of blood in Sudan’s major cities that Monday, longing to see Sudanese people ruffling one another feathers in the streets, and the country eventually ends up in chaos like Iraq, Syria, Libya and the likes. That would not alone pacify his personal narrow agenda; but shall constitute the threshold of the second phase of the old Israeli strategy after the secession of South Sudan.
Arguably, Reeves’ hallmark wiliness was manifested when he hypocritically went on to urge the international community, to warn Khartoum not to use excessive force in response to disobedience movement. Ironically enough, Reeve's Daydream again was destined to fall apart; Khartoum was neither intended in essence, nor practically needed to resort to any violence; as the highly publicized nationwide "sit-at-home" strike called by Sudanese opposition activists, has proven to be yet another paper tiger; as empty vessels make most noise, it was apparently only active ( with due respect) in the minds of internet browsers, social media websites, Facebook and Twitter mainly in diaspora, however, practically flopped in mobilizing the grassroots on the ground; in other words the silent majority made their voices heard unequivocally by ignoring the call.
Paradoxically, in the opinion of many Sudanese political analysts, the inopportune appearance on the political scene, of opportunists who already lost political and moral compass, like Reeves alongside the remnant Sudanese war-gamblers in diaspora, in a desperate bid to kidnap and twist the strike in favor of their ulterior agendas, has proven to be otherwise, extremely harmful to the strike’s already scanty chance of success.
At the time the American sanctions continue to confound their everyday life, Sudanese people watch in agony, how Reeves and his likes, spearheading the chorus of Sudanese war-lords in diaspora, spare no opportunity to unscrupulously call for yet more stiffer sanctions against the Sudan . The people of the Sudan do discern and understand that these two decades old rigorous and unwarranted sanctions, were primarily upheld and strengthened in order to “degrade" the Sudanese economy and create circumstances under which vast majority of people will blame their own government for the hardships and possibly rise up against it. They do understand that sanctions affect the most, the vulnerable sectors amongst them, simply due to their retroactive and extraterritorial scope and constitute thereby the principal obstacle to the daily life, health and education.
It’s no longer a secret that out of fear of American wrath and devastative reprisal and since the saga of French bank BNP Paribas in mid-2014, which led to what many is described as "over-compliance" by international banks, correspondent banks have closed accounts of clients in Sudan and have in many cases refused to conduct financial transactions if Sudanese individuals, businesses or institutions were involved, including ones with licenses issued by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Against all odds, Sudan is fully determined to press ahead with efforts to normalize ties with the United States, taking into account the consecutive American political and economic gestures in the last few months, starting with the statement issued by the American embassy in Khartoum, issued immediately after the extension of the sanctions last November 2016; that the extension was purely "technical" and part of a routine, annual process that does not prejudice the ability of the president to provide sanctions relief at any point in the future.
The world has already started to view sanctions and blockade of Sudan, as a systematic violation of the human rights of all Sudanese people, and in fact, qualified as an act of genocide pursuant to the 1948 Geneva Convention. Luckily enough, we are not far away from truth, to claim that and likewise within the US, there is a similar trend galvanizing within the State Department and National Security Council purportedly that the US boycott, blockade and embargo against the Sudan remains inefficient, immoral and not justified. The question here, fifty years with Cuba, and already two decades of sanctions on Sudan, for how long further, the new US Administration, is going to turn deaf ears to such rationale?