• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington's Call for Negotiating SPLM-N Dishonest


Active member
Oct 17, 2012
Reaction score
Political Leaning
The reasons of the failure of the negotiations between Sudan and the S{LM/N over South Kordofan and Blue Nile were soon become known. The same person who crafted Resolution 2046 was behind the failure.
They want to repeat another Naivasha scenario in Sudan. The first step for that is to escalate military operations so as to have negotiating position and draw the attention of the international community to the crisis. Member of the Sudan's negotiation squad has disclosed that the rebel leaders have only come for maneuvering and have nothing to negotiate dispute.
Most observers ignore this fact about the negotiations between Sudan and SPLM-N rebels. They have ignored the fact that the negotiations were full of intrigues and the attack on Um Rowaba and Karshola is clear evidence of the bad wills.
The international community is just standing idly by. It has taken no action against the rebel movements for attacking, killing and displacing a lot of innocent civilians.
There are more pieces of evidence that the international community is bias against Sudan. Washington for example has covered up crimes against humanity committed by Sudan Revolution Front rebels in North and South Kordofan. The negotiation conducted under the patronage of the African Union was not for the sake of negotiation to finalize peace process.
The foreign circles backed rebels tends to destroy and dismantle the state as happened in Iraq in 2003. The only difference is that the war on Iraq was led US and some allies while rebels in Sudan launch the proxy war.
The demolition of the Sudanese is the part of US's creative chaos concept to pave the way for warring between the different groups to form a new state quite different from the current one.
The idea is more dangerous than the rebels' call for New Sudan. It tends to dissolve the Sudanese army to establish a new army from the rebels, divide the country and separate religion from the state as included in the New Dawn Charter.
Like Naivasha, 2005, Washington tends to settle its political scores with Sudan and its calls for negotiation with the rebels is a big lie.
Top Bottom