Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR


Rice Pushes Referendum
To Ignite Sudan War

by Lawrence K. Freeman

Oct. 4, 2010 (EIRNS)—It is well-known by leaders, both in Khartoum and in Washington, D.C., that the referendum on the secession of Southern Sudan, scheduled to take place on Jan. 9, 2011, will not be "free, fair, and transparent," but will be a mess, marred by fraud, negligence, and intimidation. The government of Sudan, along with the governments of many other African nations, have already announced that they will not accept a vote for the South to secede from the nation of Sudan, if it is not "free, fair, and transparent." Knowing this, the decision by the United States to commit all its resources to force the vote will be seen as an intentional act of war against Sudan, which could lead to genocide in the region.

The individual most responsible for this policy is the "rice-ist" Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who, as the dear friend of First Lady Michelle Obama, is pressuring the State Department to destabilize Sudan, and plunge it back into war with a fraudulent vote. Lyndon LaRouche minced no words in a discussion with this author: "We know Susan Rice is a menace to civilization. From our long experience with Susan Rice, we know she is no damn good." Rice's history as a "true believer" and follower of British geopolitics has been demonstrated over the last two decades, in her non-stop efforts to overthrow the government in Khartoum, and carve up Sudan into multiple states, in an attempt to destroy the sovereignty of the largest country of Africa. This has been the British goal for Sudan for over a century. (See "Why Do We Call Susan Rice a Racist? Because She Is One," EIR, Dec. 25, 2009.)

With the referendum vote on unity or secession just three months away, there is heightened realization of the danger facing Sudan and Africa. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's calling the Sudan a "ticking time bomb" has certainly caught everybody's attention, indicating an awareness which has led to a ramping up of diplomatic activity, which some call the "Juba surge"—Juba is expected to be the new capital of Southern Sudan. Although there has been a belated recognition that U.S. foreign policy towards Sudan has been a failure, having done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of the Sudanese people, U.S. policy remains on course to blow up Sudan by advocating a vote everyone knows in advance will not be credible in Sudan or Africa. LaRouche added: "We expect fraud under the current policy from Susan Rice."

Despite various statements by the United States alluding to the possibility of improved relations, and more friendly atmospherics during the United Nations General Assembly, the Obama Administration—by nakedly backing secession for the South, threatening the North with more consequences, and publicly supporting the International Criminal Court's fraudulent warrant for the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir—is sending a clear message to Khartoum. There is even a mooting of U.S. military intervention into Sudan, as one of those consequences.

This continued failure in U.S. policy is the result of the influence of Rice and her minions in the government and Congress, along with President Obama's behavior as a puppet of the British empire's long-standing goal to dismember Sudan. More thoughtful Americans, experienced in dealing with Sudan, know that Khartoum will see Washington's true intention, guided by the not-so-invisible hand of Rice,

In the midst of the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen, and a breakdown of the global economy, there is no justification for creating a new African state out of one already suffering from the lack of economic development. The policy then begs the question: Why are the U.S. and its Western allies insisting on separation now, under these conditions, unless there is another intention?

Since the acceptance of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the North and South in 2005, the U.S. has given $6 billion in aid to the southern part of Sudan, including $300 million a year in the two years of the Obama Presidency, with little to show for it. This is due to the influence of Rice on U.S.-Sudan relations. Consequently no attempt has been made to help unite Sudan by providing essential infrastructure such as a north-south railroad to help integrate the country, and increased production of electricity. Even though the CPA, which the Bush Administration shepherded through, stipulated that there be economic development, this was consciously ignored, with the U.S., instead, imposing more layers of sanctions on Sudan, which has hurt the entire country, including economically devastating the South.

A June 2010 report commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development derided the effectiveness of the so-called capacity-building efforts, saying they were "detached from actual performance, impossible to measure, and thus unlikely to succeed." A recent UN report listed the terrible conditions of life in the South, leading one UN official to comment: "It's 'as bad as it can be,' with the South having the world's highest maternal and infant mortality rates, 24% literacy, and 1.5 million out of a reported 8 million facing "severe food insecurity."

Leaders in Southern Sudan are worried, and justifiably so, that that the U.S., which has done little to develop their region, will abandon them as the U.S. economy continues to collapse, and money to aid Sudan is cut off. Those who follow developments in Sudan closely are concerned that the U.S. is prepared to cut assistance to the South should it secede—again raising serious questions about the real intent of U.S. actions in Sudan.

The drive for the division of Sudan is an assault on the its sovereignty. It would tear the country apart for generations to come, by forcing individual citizens and their families to choose their identities in artificially created categories of Northern versus Southern. The entire nation of Sudan would be weakened by separation, making the country more susceptible to manipulation and outside control, once it is turned into a collection of smaller states pitted against each other, according to typical British "divide and rule" policy.

All Sudanese patriots, American patriots, and people of good will throughout the world, must act to deny the British their centuries-old design to partition Sudan into two (at least), sealed-off, separate entities, as they did in 1925 under the Passport and Ordinance Act. We must not accept the break-up of Sudan as a "done deal." It is wrong for the people of Sudan; and it is wrong for all Africans, who have already suffered from centuries of "ethnic-tribal" manipulation imposed upon them by their colonial masters. Africa does not need an additional artificially created "state," which will provide the "model" and rationale to carve up and destabilize other nations in Africa, creating the conditions for permanent war and genocide across the continent.

Susan Rice, with her British "rice-ist" anti-African ideology, should be told to "get," and to keep her paws off Africa, once and for all.