sUdan comes before sYria

First I want to give a shout out to all the African Americans out on the front line protesting against the horrible atrocities in the Sudan, especially those who have written diligently and criticized the President for his lack of attention toward that war torn nation. Not to pat myself on the back for writing about Obama and his lack of attention toward Africa, not to mention its descendents who helped him get in office, I have pressed the issue vehemently but only have received comments suggesting I stop “finding” stuff to complain about regarding our current commander in chief by his coterie of folk who protect him simple because of the color of his skin.
Last month, it took a wealthy White man to bring attention to what was occurring in Sudan. I was glad of the attention but was hurt at the same time that no one that looked like me was on the front row of this issue. I’m sure there will be many now, since the uncle tom gene that many of us possess is not a recessive gene and always stands out when Master does something to say it’s ok for us to follow masters lead.

This week, Sudan on Tuesday carried out new airstrikes inside South Sudan in around the village of Tashwin. This after Khartoum vowed that it would use "all means" against a three-pronged attack it said South Sudanese forces had launched against South Kordofan state, including its key oil-producing region of Heglig. These are a continuation of skirmishes that happened last month along the undemarcated and disputed frontier in the Heglig area, with each side blaming the other for starting the fighting.

The last time I heard the President even speak of the problems in Sudan was June of 2011. He was at the United Nations as his top envoy prepared to travel to the region to address the political and military crisis concerning the peaceful division of Sudan into two states. It was right after he had met with his top Sudan envoy, Princeton Lyman as representatives from northern and southern Sudan continued talks in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. All he did was talk and give some warning and photo ops.

It is clear the focus and interest for the present administration is Syria for they turn a blind eye toward Sudan and Africa in general. I am certain that they are aware that Khartoum fought one of Africa’s bloodiest and longest civil wars against the south - a 22-year conflict, which began in 1983 and left more than 2 million people dead.

This is what is so troubling, the visible inconsistency of Obama’s foreign policy. He says nothing for example about Omar Al Bashir, the dictator of Sudan and one of the worst mass murderers of our time who has committed genocide for longer than any political leader living currently. Obama is either hiding or intentionally avoiding this. On the one hand, it is easy for him to state that Hosni Mubarak , Muammar Qaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad must go but not Al Bashir, the tyrannt right next door to a ruler who was way less dangerous to his people comparatively speaking and way less monstrous -Qaddafi. When reality in the form of displacement, deaths and rapes supports that chasing Qaddafi and not Al Bashir is like “going after Mussolini instead of Hitler. “
Last March I wrote, “Not to beat a dead horse, but this Libya example is almost comical. The reasons proffered for intervention are even more fanatical, when we look at and examine the desire to protect the innocent. Maybe the innocent dwellers of lands endeared with oil reserves, but not solely the innocent. By that logic, worthy locations would have our attention. The Sudan where millions are having been displaced and tens of thousands butchered. The Ivory Coast, where more than 500,000 have been displaced and a civil war looms.”

Just last October, the President issued a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act (a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars) for Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not forgetting that as of 2010 the allocation of U.S. foreign aid from USAID to Sudan was in excess of $420 million. A continuance in the pattern of continuous involvement with foreign aid to Sudan for many years in which more than $250 million was given to the nation between 1977–1981.

But for the Obama administration, the fledgling democratic movement of the Sudan must be defended and preserved even at the cost of millions lives of innocent and defenseless civilians—children, women, and men. When he was a senator, in 2007 and 2008, Obama, was extremely critical of George W. Bush's administration for engaging with Khartoum. Obama even advocated for a no-fly zone for Darfur. Even his current U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice advocated military intervention with personnel on the ground. Also in 2008, then candidate Obama joined in a statement in which he demanded "that the genocide and violence in Darfur be brought to an end and that he would "pursue these goals with unstinting resolve." Not to mention a year later it was Mr. Obama, in a statement released by the White House who said “As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act; the government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction.”

The Whitehouse lacks an official policy toward the Sudan and to this date has not keeping his campaign promises, although Obama once said, "Sudan is a priority for this Administration" and "There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government." Barack Obama says that the US will apply more pressure on Sudan but his administration has caved to a flawed election. I guess assuming that such is better than no election at all. The fact is that the present administration ignorance and inaction most likely end in a new civil war. The last north-south civil war in Sudan ended with a fragile peace in 2005, after some two million deaths.
What is our administration’s foreign policy when it comes to dictators, tyrants, Africa and democracy? Obama claims he went to war in Libya because NATO was afraid of the threat of government genocide, while we see such real time in the Sudan. Now the Administration is turning its attention and rhetoric towards Syria; which I am certain is for the benefit of Israel.

I just want the president to come correct and say openly that he has no interest in addressing what is going on in Africa with the Sudan. That he and his administration has a lack of interest in the slaughters of Africans whenever it involve people with darker skin. The numbers reported that I have seen pertaining to Sudan is greater than those in Libya or Syria, yet the White House seems not to notice. Even in the dictionary, Sudan would come before Syria.