SUDAN @ RCN
RCN COUNTRIES
|


Syndicated News from Sudan
Date Added: Sat, 25 May 2013 04:12:02 GMT
Date Added: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:11:17 GMT
Date Added: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:01:33 GMT
Date Added: Sat, 25 May 2013 04:30:26 GMT
|
Human rights groups call for justice over Wau killingsSudan TribuneMay 24, 2013 (LONDON) - Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch launched a joint statement on Friday calling on South Sudan to properly investigate the deaths of eight protesters in Wau, one of the country's largest towns, in December last year. |
Date Added: Sat, 25 May 2013 04:30:30 GMT
Date Added: Fri, 24 May 2013 02:06:23 GMT
Date Added: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:59:26 GMT
Date Added: Fri, 24 May 2013 18:00:12 GMT
|
UN: 47000 displaced in less than one month in Kordofan, SudanRadio DabangaArmed clashes between Sudanese troops and rebel forces that broke out on 27 April in North and South Kordofan have displaced 47,000 people so far, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says. The figure was provided to OCHA ... |
Date Added: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:08:11 GMT
Date Added: Fri, 24 May 2013 06:16:22 GMT
Warning: mysql_result() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /var/www/vhosts/rcnetwork.net/httpdocs/Country.php on line 19
Results 1 - 10 of Headlines for Sudan
Sudan Headlines
Results Page:
Date Added: Tuesday, January 27th, 2004
Contributed by: RCN Administrator
Terrified Refugees flee into Chad. ’It is terrible; they are slaughtering us. I need to tell somebody,’ teacher says -- Sudanese civilians bombed
Terrified Refugees flee into Chad. 'It is terrible; they are slaughtering us. I need to tell somebody,' teacher says
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Sudanese planes dropped bombs in western Sudan yesterday, sending hundreds of people fleeing across the border into Chad, where aid workers scrambled to provide them food and shelter in the barren desert.
Loud explosions echoed across the border as terrified refugees told of government planes bombing their homes and an Arab militia raiding their villages earlier in the day.
Some watched later as a small plane circled over this border town and dropped a bomb on the Sudanese side. The explosion sent a plume of smoke and dust into the air.
"It is terrible; they are slaughtering us," schoolteacher Ishmael Haggar, 30, said in broken English. "I need to tell somebody."
Although peace talks have reached their final stages to end Sudan's 20-year civil war between the Islamic government and the main southern rebel group, a smaller insurgency in Darfur, along the border with Chad, has worsened in recent months.
Refugees, however, said there were no rebels in the town and accused Sudanese forces of attacking civilians as they fled to Chad. Aid workers and journalists have been denied permission to cross the border to investigate. Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.
Haggar, standing outside a hospital set up by Médecins sans Frontières, said planes targeted the brick homes in his village, Musbad, about 25 kilometres from the border with Chad.
The doctors said they had treated 60 refugees with shrapnel wounds, and 35 remained in serious condition. One man lost his right leg.
A bomb fell on Haggar's home Friday, killing his grandmother when a wall fell on her. His 13-year-old brother who was pulled from the rubble, died hours later.
After that, government militiamen stormed the village, killing anyone who resisted them before looting houses, he said.
Haggar and a neighbour took a camel and fled across the border, joining more than 12,000 other Sudanese refugees around Tine. The Sudanese crowd the dusty streets as refugees rush to the hospital with the wounded.
The United Nations refugee agency estimates more than 95,000 Sudanese have crossed the border at several different areas in the last six weeks. Aid agencies have begun setting up camps in the desert, but finding sources of water has been difficult.
Government officials last week claimed victory over the Darfur rebels in the state-run media, and First Vice-President Ali Osman Mohammed Taha issued a statement Friday claiming to have met one of the Darfur rebel leaders to begin peace talks. Results Page:
Date Added: Friday, July 25th, 2003
Contributed by: RCN Administrator
Let me say up front that I believe we have no business sending U.S. troops all over the world for so-called peacekeeping efforts. Such activity almost always amounts to nation building, nothing more. It sacrifices American lives on the altar of political and commercial appeasement. It is morally and historically wrong. Unfortunately, this has been the policy of practically every administration, regardless of party, since World War II.
That President Bush is leaving American servicemen in Iraq to be killed one or two at a time is shameless and heartless, to say the least. Building a new Iraq is not the job of the U.S. military. If politicians, diplomats, and CEO’s want to seize oil wells and develop a commercial Iraq, let them move over there and put their own fannies in the fire!
However, the Bush administration is not content to let our troops remain targets in Iraq; now it wants to send additional troops to Liberia. Once again, the purpose appears to be nothing more than nation building. Or is it?
The question begs to be asked: what is the commercial attraction of Liberia? Is it diamonds? Is it precious metals? What do the global elite find appealing in Liberia? One thing is sure: the U.S. doesn’t send troops to any country for strictly humanitarian reasons! Why do I say that? Just look at The Sudan.
There is no country on earth that has witnessed more abuses and atrocities than has The Sudan. Over the past two decades, the Muslim government in Khartoum has murdered over two million people. Most of the dead are women and children. The reason they were killed? They were Christians.
Furthermore, slavery is very much alive and well in The Sudan. Children are sold into slavery by the thousands. Women are bought and sold as sex slaves in equal numbers.
Beyond that, death in The Sudan is extremely tortuous and heinous. Children are forced to watch as their mothers are raped and disemboweled and their fathers are crucified. The cruelty committed by The Sudan’s government soldiers against innocent people is incomprehensible to those of us in America.
Yet, the Bush administration has shown absolutely no interest in sending U.S. troops to help stop the carnage in The Sudan. Why? The Khartoum government makes Saddam Hussein look like a choir boy. If deposing a murderous regime is justification for invading a foreign country, certainly The Sudan qualifies.
Beyond that, The Sudan is rich in oil, almost as rich as Iraq. So, why do the oil giants who control America’s politicians not clamor for a "just war" against The Sudan?
The reason is simple: major U.S. oil companies are already operating in The Sudan, and they are protected by Communist Chinese troops. That’s right. U.S. oil companies in concert with Communist China control the oil fields of The Sudan.
Therefore, with the blessing and protection of China, the Khartoum government wages an unrestricted and unchallenged war of genocide against the Christians of southern Sudan. And all the while, the U.S. government looks the other way.
The moral high tones used by the Bush administration for justifying an unconstitutional war in Iraq and soon in Liberia becomes nothing more than dull cacophony when one takes a look at its policy, or lack of one, toward The Sudan.
© Chuck Baldwin
Results Page:
Date Added: Monday, April 28th, 2003
Contributed by: RCN Administrator
BY DAVID ROSE --
|
© VANITY FAIR Repinted from Vanity Fair (New York) January 2002, No. 497, pp.50-56 |
THE OSAMA FILES
BY DAVID ROSE |
|
|
 |
|
In the wake of those attacks, President Bush and the F.B.I. issued a list of the world's 22 most wanted terrorists. Sudan has kept files on many of them for years.
From the autumn of 1996 until just weeks before the 2001 attacks, the Sudanese government made numerous efforts to share this information with the United States all of which were rebuffed. On several occasions, senior agents at the F.B.I. wished to accept these offers, but were apparently overruled by President Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, both of whom would not comment for this story after repeated requests for interviews. Vanity Fair has obtained letters and secret memorandums that document these approaches. They were made directly to the State Department and the F.B.I., and also via a series of well-connected U.S. citizens who tried to warn America that the Sudanese offers were serious and significant.
By definition, September 11 was an intelligence failure. As the C.I.A. man puts It, We didn't know it was going to happen." Some of the reasons for that failure were structural, systemic: the shortage of Arabic-speaking agents, the inability of C.I.A. officers to go underground in Afghanistan.
This one was more specific. CE Had U.S. agencies examined the AF Mukhabarat files when they first REI had the chance in 1996, the prospects of preventing al-Qaeda's subsequent attacks would have been much greater. Tim Carney, the last U.S. ambassador to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, says: "The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren't taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan's willingness to engage us on serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications-at the least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization."
How could this have happened? The simple answer is that the Clinton administration had accused Sudan of sponsoring terrorism, and refused to believe that anything it did to prove its bona fides could be genuine. At the same time, perceptions in Washington were influenced by C.I.A. reports that were wildly inaccurate, some the result of deliberate disinformation. The problem, Carney says, was "inadequate vetting and analysis by the C.I.A. of its own product." That, in turn, was being conditioned by the Clinton administration's hostility to Sudan's Islamic regime: "Despite dissent from the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. intelligence failed be- cause it became politicized."
Osama bin Laden, his four wives, his children, and numerous "Afghan Arab" followers who had helped drive the Soviets from Afghanistan went to Sudan from Saudi Arabia early in 1991. They chose Sudan for two main reasons. First, the restless, radicalised veterans of the Afghan war were unwelcome in most Arab countries, but Sudan left its doors open. Second, bin Laden liked Sudan's politics. The Islamic radicalism of the government's then ideological leader, the philosopher Hassan aI-Turabi, who had come to power in a coup d'etat in 1989, was at its bracing zenith. The Sudanese, in turn, welcomed bin Laden as an investor. His family had built most of Saudi Arabia's infrastructure, and they saw his wealth and experience as an engineer as valuable resources in developing Sudan. |
 |
|
Al-Qaeda, with its secretive structure and oath of allegiance to bin Laden, had been founded two years earlier. In Sudan, however, much of bin Laden's energy went into business: a contract, funded by the Saudis, to build the airport at Port Sudan: agricultural projects; and al-Hijra, a joint venture with the Sudan government to build a 185-mile road northward from Khartoum Abu Ibrahim, the Iraqi engineer who became al-Hijra's C.E.O., says bin Laden took a strong interest in the project's technical details. In bin Laden's large house in an affluent part of Khartoum, they spent hours together, discussing which diggers, graders, and other items the firm ought to buy. On his visits to the site, Ibrahim says, bin Laden showed "he knew how to drive every piece of machinery." Ibrahim had known bin Laden during the Afghan war. "When we were in Afghanistan, everything was jihad, jihad, jihad," he says. "Here in Sudan we saw his many other aspects-construction, family life. |
 |
 | |
 |
| He was settling down." However, bin Laden also found time to begin a fierce propaganda campaign against the Saudi government, furious that it had allowed the U.S. military to build bases on Saudi soil. By 1994 that campaign had led to the removal of his Saudi citizenship. He was also fostering contacts with other Muslim extremists some of whom were very dangerous indeed. As we sat on gray-green leather sofas in his office, Yahia Hussien Ba-viker, the Mukhabarat's deputy chief since 1998, disclosed a nugget from 1992. In that year, the Mukhabarat learned that bin Laden had played host for a lengthy visit by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the founder of Egyptian Islamic had-a fundamentalist group , behind many armed attacks on Egyptian government ministers and officials, including the 1981 assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
"If we'd had communication with the U.S., we could have been on the same wavelength. We could have exchanged notes." An foreigners in Sudan were subject to some degree of surveillance. Disclosure of bin Laden's link with Egyptian Islamic Ji-had led the Mukhabarat to watch him and his Afghan Arab followers more closely. Lieutenant General Gutbi al-Mahdi, Mukhabarat director general from 1997 until 2000, says the service started keeping tabs on "the entire bin Laden clique. ...We had a lot of information: who they are, who are their families, what is their education. We knew what they were doing in the country, what is their relationship with Osama bin Laden. And photographs of all them." Not long into the 1990s, Sudan's Islamic fervor was already being tempered by pragmatism. Desperate for investment, especially to develop its vast reserves of oil, the government submitted to the stringent economic medicine prescribed by the World Bank, slashing inflation and privatizing state-owned industries. (Osama bin Laden himself became the Sudan agent for the British firm Hunting Surveys, which plays a large role in oil prospecting and whose military division makes about a fifth of the West's Trident nuclear missiles.) In 1994 it tried to assert its anti-terrorist credentials by assisting France in the capture of Illich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal," the notorious Venezuelan-born terrorist who claims to have killed 83 people, now serving a life sentence in France.
The U.S., however, remained convinced that Sudan was sponsoring terrorism. Toward the end of 1995, the then U.S. ambassador, Don Petterson, was instructed to deliver an un-signed, secret note to the spiritual leader, Hassan al-Turabi, and President Omar al-Bashir. It said the U.S. was "aware of Sudan's involvement in terrorist plots against us," and warned that if such a plot came to fruition there would be a harsh reaction. It could result in "the international isolation of Sudan, in the destruction of your economy, and in military measures that would make you pay a high price." |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
A focus on the wrong enemy was not the only mistaken feature of U.S. intelligence on Sudan. In 1993 the U.S. Embassy sent home all nonessential staff, spouses, and children, because the CIA claimed it had evidence that Americans were at risk of terrorist attack.
One report even claimed that there was a plot to bomb a party for the children of Khartoum's American embassy workers. None of these threats were real. Petterson says, "There's no question there were mistaken reports." President Clinton's national-security adviser, Tony Lake, was uprooted with his family and kept under Secret Service guard at Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. The reason was another bogus C.I.A. claim that Sudanese agents were planning to murder him in Washington. Finally, at the beginning of 1996, just after Petterson had come to the end of his tour, the embassy was emptied of Americans altogether, again because of unspecified "security threats".
His successor, Tim Carney, would somehow have to do his job based a thousand miles away, in Nairobi, Kenya. This was unjustified, Petterson says.
The veteran C.I.A. Africa specialist says that this inaccurate intelligence was the product of disinformation, fed by an organised ring whose motives were a mixture of malice and greed. All these reports cost the C.I.A. money. One of its members, a Tunisian, Ali bin Mustafa Homed, was convicted of espionage in Sudan last summer and given a 14-year jail sentence. Yahia Baviker, the Mukhabarat deputy chief, confirmed that feeding disinformation to foreign intelligence agencies formed one of the charges against Homed.
Sudan was aghast at these developments. However, the radical wing of the government, led by the philosopher Dr. al-Turabi, was losing ground to the pragmatist moderates, who wanted good relations with the West. (In 1998, al-Turabi was placed under arrest, where he remains.) So when, in February 1996, Carney began to convey America's demand that Sudan expel bin Laden, mainly because of his campaign against the Saudis, his audience was surprisingly receptive. Gutbi al-Mahdi, the former Mukhabat boss, who was then serving as the Sudanese president's senior adviser, says Sudan did not object on principle. The arguments he and his colleagues used were more practical. "We said, 'Here he is under control, and we know everything about him. Here in Sudan he is under our supervision.'". Once bin Laden was expelled, al-Mahdi adds, "he had absolutely no choice other than to become a full-time radical". About 300 Afghan Arabs went with him. According to an Egyptian intelligence source, "Most of them are now terrorists".
Bin Laden was expelled in May 1996. Despite this evidence of Sudan's willingness to cooperate, the U.S. appeared to have no interest in seeing what it could learn from Sudan. Mahdi Ibrahim Mohamed, now the information minister, went to Washington as Sudan's ambassador in February 1996. A long-standing Americophile, he had been educated in Michigan and California: "I like the country, I like the people. I went as ambassador for three years, with a positive view that America was open, free, open for dialogue.
What I found was a major surprise and disappointment." Mohammed spent three years trying to get a meeting with the State Department's assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, only to find himself fobbed off on junior officials. He was no more successful in his efforts to see the National Security Council's Tony Lake, or his successor, Sandy Berger. The N.S.C. staff continued to accuse Sudan of harboring terrorists. Mohamed begged the officials to make a specific allegation, but they refused. "I said, 'Give me any information about any terrorists, any camps, as you believe it to be, and we will take it very seriously.' The response was 'Your government knows. You must know. We don't like to expose our sources."'
Ambassador Mohamed conveyed an open offer: the C.I.A. and F.B.I. could send a joint investigative team, which could travel freely throughout the country. "I used to say, 'Go anywhere, take a plane from Khartoum and say where you want to go once we're in the air."' It was not taken up. In February 1997, the offer was repeated in a letter from Presidental-Bashir to Clinton. Al-Bashir suggested "a mission tasked to investigate allegations that the government of Sudan trains or shelters terrorists," with "freedom of movement and contact and unrestricted choice of suspected terrorist sites." Clinton never replied. |
 |
 |
 |
|
THE GO-BETWEEN MansoorIjaz a friend of bill Clinton's couldn't persuade U.S. officials to look at Sudans's reports. (Right below) a letter from Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir to Representative Lee Hamilton offering information to the F.B.I. | | |
 |
It began to dawn on the Sudanese that one way of convincing America that they were serious about fighting terrorists was to offer U.S. investigators access to the Mukhabarat files on bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Frustrated in their efforts to invite America in through the front door, they resolved to try a back channel-the multimillionaire Pakistani-American businessman and fund manager Mansoor Ijaz. Then a big donor to the Democratic Party, Ijaz was on personal terms with Clinton, Berger, and A1 Gore. He was also fearful of the likely result of U.S. refusal to engage with Islamic regimes, such as Sudan: "As an American Muslim, I had a terrifying vision of what could go wrong. I wanted to do whatever I could to stop that happening."
As an investor, Ijaz was interested in Sudan's oil, but he also shared "a fundamental sense of injustice" at the way the country was being treated. From July 1996 until August 1997, he made six trips to Khartoum, meeting Dr. al-Turabi, President al-Bashir, the Mukhabarat chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, and other officials. He suceeded in convincing them that it was worth making a further effort to persuade the U.S. of Sudan's sincerity-partly by drawing America's attention to the intelligence on al-Qaeda. His initiative produced its most dramatic result in a letter dated April 5, 1997, from President al-Bashir to Lee H. Hamilton, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. | |
 |
|
It stated, "We extend an offer to the F.B.I's Counter-terrorism units and any other official delegations which your government may deem appropriate, to come to the Sudan and work with our External Intelligence Department in order to assess the data in our possession and help us counter the forces your government, and ours. seek to contain." (My italics.) According to Ijaz, Hamilton took the letter to both Madeleine Albright and Sandy Beger, neither of whom replied. Ijaz also wrote memorandums on his mission for Sandy Berger, and in a series of conversations he spelled out exactly what the Sudanese offer meant. He told Berger, "That phrase [in the letter to Hamilton], 'to assess the data in our possession,' was an explicit reference to the data on bin Laden. The reference to 'the forces we seek to contain' was an explicit reference to the attempt to stop al-Qaeda spreading." Ijaz and his family had shared their Christmas dinner in the White House with the ain- tons. However good his access, he could not budge U.S. policy on Sudan.
The Sudanese did not give up. Beginning in the autumn of 1997, they made use of another private go-between, Janet McElligott, a lobbyist who had worked at the White House under George H. W Bush. |
 |
 | |
 |
| Like Ijaz before her, she assumed that rational statecraft would, in the end, prevail. In this she was mistaken. On February 5, 1998, her efforts helped produce perhaps the smokiest of all the smoking guns in this story: a letter direct from Gutbi al-Mahdi of the Mukhabarat to David Williams, chief of the F.B.I.'s Middle East and Africa desk. It read, "I would like to express my sincere desire to start contacts and cooperation between our service and the F.B.I. I would like to take this opportunity with pleasure to invite you to visit our country. Otherwise, we could meet somewhere else. Till then I remain, yours truly."
Eighteen days later, on February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his blood- curdling fatwa from his hideout in Afghanistan, calling on all Muslims to kill Americans and Jews, adding that civilians were now to be regarded as targets. McElligott followed up the letter with a personal appeal: "I told them, 'You do realize bin Laden lived there and they have files on his main people?' There is simply no doubt the F.B.I. knew what was available. The guy I dealt with said, 'I'd give any- thing to go in there, but they'-meaning the State Department-'won't let us."' David Williams did not reply to al-Mahdi's letter for another four months. "Unfortunately," he wrote on June 24, "I am not currently in a position to accept your kind invitation." He hoped "future circumstances" might allow it, but for now the offer had to be rejected. Six. weeks after that, bin Laden's al-Qaeda network succeeded in exploding two pick- up trucks at the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. They were reduced to piles of bloody rubble in which 224 people lay dead or dying. | |
There were still a few twists of this bitter farce to come. A few days after the bombings, as NBC first reported in 1999, Sudan arrested two suspects who had arrived in Khartoum from Kenya. They were carrying Pakistani passports and using the names Sayyid Nazir Abbass and Sayyid Iskandar Suliman. They had rented an apartment overlooking the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and appeared to be reconnoitring it for a possible future attack. The material gathered between 1991 and 1996 led the Mukhabarat to believe that the two men were members of al-Qaeda; what is certain is that they had stayed in the Hilltop Hotel in Nairobi-the base used by other members of the embassy-bombings conspiracy. The Mukha-barat cabled the F.B.I. in Washington, offering to extradite them. Without consulting the F.B.I., the U.S. Departments of State and Defense replied by bombing the al-Shifa factory in Khartoum, claiming-on the basis of what is now acknowledged to have been yet more faulty intelligence-that it was owned by bin Laden and was making VX nerve gas. In fact, al-Shifa had no connection to bin Laden. It made vaccines and medicine, and had contracts with the U.N. U.S.-Sudan relations then reached their nadir. The Mukhabarat sent the suspects "Abbass" and "Suliman" to Pakistan, where they were promptly lost to view. Ambassador Mohamed f was withdrawn from Washington. Just before his departure, Janet McElligott arranged a meeting at her home between him and a senior F.B.I. official. McElligott says the F.B.I. man expressed his deep regret for what had happened and said he hoped that in time the politicians would allow his agency to examine the Sudanese intelligence.
A few months later, in yet another attempt to induce a thaw, the Mukhabarat chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, invited McElligott to Khartoum. He gave her a hand-written note, which she delivered to the office of the then F.B.I. director, Louis Freeh. It related the circumstances of the two suspects' arrest and the offer to send them to America, adding, "The bombardment of the pharmaceutical factory blew up the link we established with the F.B.I. and the co-operation that developed on the situation." However, their interrogation had revealed "some information," and, as McEIligott reminded the F.B.I., the Mukha-barat al-Qaeda files still awaited inspection. Through McElligott, the F.B.I. tentatively suggested a meeting with al-Mahdi in Europe. Before it could take place, the State Department vetoed it. In Sudan, the ongoing U.S. attitude produced bewilderment. "We felt it was an irrational attitude," al-Mahdi says. "We were extending our hand to some- one who badly needed help, for our mutual benefit, and it was being | | |
 |
|
rejected." He goes on to echo the claim made by Ambassador Carney: "If [the F.B.I.] had taken up my offer in February 1998, they could have prevented the bombings.
They had very little information at that time: they were shooting in the dark. Had they engaged with the Sudan, they could have stopped a lot of things." It is hard to conceive of a more serious allegation, and it appears to stand up to scrutiny. As late as the end of 1995, Osama bin Laden was not judged important enough by the C.I.A. or F.B.I. for anyone to mention him to Ambassador Petterson when he went to talk to the Sudanese about terrorism. It seems reasonable to infer that the U.S. knew little about his organization or lethal capability. Yet the Mukhabarat had all the main players taped. Besides bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, there was Muhammad Atef, said to be al-Qaeda's military commander, the man who seems to have orchestrated the 1998 bombings and, reportedly, the September II attacks. (In November, Atef was reportedly killed in Afghanistan.) Every time Abu Ibrahim, bin Laden's former C.E.O" visited his Khartoum home, Atef was there: Ibrahim also recalls seeing Atef "with Osama in Afghanistan, by his side when he delivers his messages on TV.
How useful might the files on them have been? Sitting by the pool at the Khartoum Hilton, I asked a senior officer from Egyptian intelligence, who has worked closely with the Mukhabarat, and who asked not to be named. He said, "They knew all about them: who they were, where they came from. They had copies of their passports, their tickets; they knew where they went. Of course that information could have helped enormously. It is the history of those people." There are also some inescapable specifics. During the New York trial of the four men recently convicted of the 1998 bombings, the court heard a lot about a man called Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who also appears on the most-wanted list. He set the embassy plot rolling by making two journeys to Nairobi in the spring of 1998-from Khartoum, where, the Mukhabarat believed, he was working for al-Qaeda. If F.B.I. officials had accepted the offer made by al-Mahdi that February, they would have known this too, and at some point during his subsequent murderous odyssey, when he rented a villa in Kenya, gathered the bombers at the Hilltop Hotel, or helped stuff a pickup truck with TNT, they might have stepped in and smashed the conspiracy. The Mukhabarat also kept files on another wanted embassy bomber, the Egyptian Saif al-Adel, who also appears on the list of most wanted. He is believed to be in Afghanistan.
If the 1998 plot had been foiled, per- haps there would have been no September II. In any event, Sudan had other intelligence that would have made al-Qaeda's burgeoning growth less likely. Wadih al-Hage, bin Laden's former private secretary, now serving life without parole after his conviction in New York for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings, was logged and photographed in Sudan. He is said to have moved among bin Laden cells across four continents. How much easier it might have been to cramp al-Qaeda's style had his importance been grasped in 1996. Another subject of a Mukhabarat file is Mamdouh Mahmoud Salim, a Sudanese born to Iraqi parents, an Afghan-war veteran who worked for two bin Laden companies in Sudan until 1995. He provides a link with the New York suicide hijackers. From 1995 until 1998, he made frequent visits to Germany, where a Syrian trader, Mamoun Darkazanli, had signing powers over his bank account. Darkazanli has been reported to have procured electronic equipment for al-Qaeda. Both men attended the same Hamburg mosque as Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew the two planes into the World Trade Center. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
It was not until May 2000 that the Clinton administration responded to pressure from the US intelligence community and agreed to send a joint F.B.I.- C.I.A. team to Sudan.
Even then its mission was not to examine the Mukhabarat files but to ascertain whether Sudan was really sponsoring terror. In the summer of 2001 the team gave the country a clean bill of health. There were no "training camps" or sanctuaries for murderers after all. Gutbi al-Mahdi, the former Mukhabarat chief, says that a few weeks before September 11 the American team finally asked to examine the Sudanese material on al-Qaeda. Events suggest that by then it was too late.
There are uncomfortable historical parallels. By the spring of 1941 the Soviet Union's "Red Orchestra" spy ring had been warning Stalin for months that Nazi Germany was about to break its pact with the Soviet Union and invade. Convinced that Hitler remained his ally, he ignored them, so that when the Nazi troop trains began to roll, and the dive-bombers began their deadly blitzkrieg, they found themselves attacking an almost undefended country. Leopold Trepper, the spy ring's leader, wrote an autobiography, published after 20 million Soviets had died in the Second World War:
"He who closes his eyes sees nothing, even in the full light of day. ...The generalissimo preferred to trust his political instinct rather than the secret reports piled up on his desk." "He who closes his eyes sees nothing." In the case of Sudan, 1996 through 2000, Madeleine Albright and her assistant secretary for Africa, Susan Rice, apparently preferred to trust their instincts that Sudan was America's enemy, and so refused to countenance its assistance against the deepest threat to U.S. security since 1945. Ambassador Carney quoted Talleyrand, the 18th-century father of modern diplomacy. This saga was "pire qu'un crime, c'etait une betise." He provided his own translation. "It was worse than a crime. It was a fuckup." |
 | |
Results Page:
Date Added: Thursday, August 15th, 2002
Contributed by: RCN Administrator
More than 600 relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks filed a trillion-dollar lawsuit yesterday against a construction firm owned by Osama bin Laden’s family, three Saudi Arabian princes, and the government of Sudan.
The lawsuit, which has a limited chance of success, seeks the equivalent of £700 billion from a range of international banks, Islamic groups and individuals. It accuses them of bankrolling al-Qa’eda and the Taliban.
The bereaved relatives, who call themselves Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, filed the lawsuit at the US District Court for the District of Columbia, in Washington.
Matt Sellitto, whose 23-year-old son, Matthew, died, conceded that the odds were stacked against the lawsuit, but said: "We will beat them, and we will pursue this action until justice is served."
• Iran has arrested and repatriated more than 400 foreign al-Qa’eda suspects, according to a website run by journalists from a banned newspaper. The suspects were mostly from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Results Page:
Date Added: Sunday, July 21st, 2002
Contributed by: RCN Administrator
U.S. efforts to secure a peace deal in Sudan scored an important -- albeit limited -- victory July 20, when the Islamist government in Khartoum and Christian rebels in the oil-rich south agreed on a framework for peace. The deal will not translate into an end of the fighting anytime soon, although in the meantime it will help support the interests of Khartoum, the rebels and the U.S. government.
Analysis
The Sudanese government and leaders of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) agreed on a basic framework last weekend that could end the country’s 19-year civil war. The agreement will allow the largely Christian and animist south to vote on independence from the Muslim-dominated north in six years, during which time Khartoum has agreed not to impose Islamic law on the region.
However, neither side agreed to a cease-fire, and fighting continues throughout the oil-rich country. The recent agreement is a significant breakthrough, not so much in the war as in the almost yearlong mediation efforts by the U.S. government. Although it does not signal an end to the conflict, the agreement may be a platform for both sides to strengthen their separate positions while retaining support from Washington.
Cooperation with the Sudanese government is vital to American anti-terrorism efforts. Khartoum is a key source of intelligence about radical Islamist militant groups (including al Qaeda), while Washington wants to prevent al Qaeda members from seeking refuge in Sudan.
Yet at the same time, the U.S. government has economic sanctions against Khartoum’s military-led Islamist government, which continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The southern rebels, including the SPLA, also are supported in part by U.S. Christian groups and by the largely U.S.-funded Operation Lifeline Sudan -- the biggest humanitarian project in Africa -- which the rebels exploit as a supply source.
Because of these conflicting agendas, the United States has pushed aggressively for peace talks between the north and south. Most recently, former U.S. Army Gen. Herbert Lloyd, the chief of a U.S.-led monitoring mission, traveled to Khartoum last week to begin establishing an office. Lloyd will be based in Khartoum and in the southern town of Rumbek, the U.N. Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) reported July 18.
The U.S. mediation efforts scored an important victory this past weekend. Implementation of the agreement giving southern citizens the option of independence will include the creation of a constitution that guarantees freedom of belief, a bicameral legislature including parties from both regions, and greater political autonomy to the south.
The sharing of oil wealth will be among the major issues to be negotiated when talks between the government and southern rebels resume in Kenya Aug. 12. Much of the country’s 262.1 million barrels of proven oil reserves lie in southern Sudan, and control over the southern fields has been a key area of contention between the government and rebels since the 1999 completion of a major oil export pipeline running from the south to Port Sudan.
But despite the weekend agreement, discussions on a cessation of hostilities are not on the agenda. Rebel spokesman Samson Kwaje has rejected any cease-fire deals with the government, arguing that Khartoum would exploit the calm to "further its war aims," IRIN reported. Government warplanes also recently bombed villages in the south.
The reality is: While both sides may see an advantage in political negotiations, neither is willing to end the war.
Khartoum wants to appear willing to negotiate in order to secure an end to U.S. sanctions and help attract more foreign direct investment. It suffered a serious blow to investor confidence recently. Canadian energy firm Talisman may be selling its 25 percent stake in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, which accounts for the majority of oil production in Sudan, Agence France-Presse reported June 19. Talisman has suffered bad publicity due to the country’s civil war, with human rights groups charging that the Sudanese government has used revenue from oil production to battle southern rebels.
Alternately, the rebels want self-determination and greater autonomy. But they will suffer a major loss of resources should the United States decide that humanitarian aid or political support is no longer necessary.
Even Washington, though pushing aggressively for a peace deal in order to satisfy domestic Christian groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which both have backed the partition of northern and southern Sudan, does not necessarily need an end to fighting. As long as Khartoum continues to share intelligence about Islamist militants -- Washington’s top priority -- then actual peace in Sudan is not of immediate concern.
The weekend framework is a step in the right direction toward ending the war. But despite hopes both within the country and internationally -- including from foreign investors -- for a more stable Sudan, the deal does not demonstrate that either side is willing or ready to halt the fighting. In fact, it may give each a little more room to maneuver politically while building up and reinforcing their relative military strength.
|