By: Trayo A. Ali

Political bodies opposing the proposed UN support mission to Sudan are the Popular Congress Party (NCP), Law and Development Party (led by the well-known supporter of ISIS Dr Mohamed Ali Jozoly) and proxy elements acting on behalf of the defunct National Congress Party (NCP). Here the stranger in Jerusalem is the UMA party of Mr Imam Sadiq al-Mahadi.

For the majority of the Sudanese, especially the victims of the overdue unjust political system (particularly the marginalized and victims of genocide), the role of the UN in adjusting the ongoing arrangements is simply a crucial matter and an opportunity not to be missed. In contrary to this concern of the victims, there are political forces basically led by the deep state elements are opposed to this expected UN role.

As are obliged to preempt and counter this malicious campaign, the broader pro-change forces and the general public need to develop counter-strategies which among others include, monitoring the actions of these opposing forces to the UN role, exposing their tactics, tricks and ploys they could employ and revealing the exact interior motives that drive them. Such strategy requires a definition of a host of relevant questions such as who are these opposing parties, on what ground are they launching their smear campaign, what means and ways are they intending to employ in effecting their combat, what are their expressed intentions, interior motives and hidden agenda, how much such forces are prepared to bear either intended or unintended consequences of their acts and what is the expected public reaction.
Such exposition helps to feed the local and international public with factual information.

In this regard, it is of paramount importance to note the fact that while these negative forces are preparing to launch their campaign they are trying to ignore and/or undermine several undisputed facts on the ground.
Some of these hard facts which can hardly be walked over in dealing with the UN issue in Sudan include.

First: Sudan is still groaning under the weight of numerous UN Security Council resolutions against violations that constitute crimes not subject to statutory limitations such as resolution 1502 (2003) and 1547 (2004) on humanitarian aid access, 1591(2005) on a travel ban and asset freeze, 1593 (2005) referral of Darfur case to the ICC, 1556 (2004) on disarmament of Janjaweed militia, 1679 (2006) on establishment and redeployment of UNAMID.

In addition to these three is this binding Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the government of Sudan and the UNAMID. the SOFA deals (among others) with freedom of movement of UNAMID personnel, their safety and security, entry into Sudan.

Second: It is a matter of fact that international factor in Sudan’s affairs has, for quite some time now, become an indispensable element and inseparable reality especially with regard to peace and security matters, humanitarian issues, human rights and good governance. This is more precisely since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on the resolution of South Sudan conflict, Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and the Doha Document on Darfur Peace (DDDP) on Darfur conflict resolution respectively.

Third: Also currently there is an international mission in Darfur known as the United Nations and African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) composed of tens of thousand international force. It is there for more than a decade for the purposes of protecting civilians under Chapter Seven in Sudan’s troubled region of Darfur.

Fourth: For reasons related to acts of terrorism, Sudan is currently under the US list of states sponsoring terrorism (SST).

Fifth: In this regards, it is important to recall a similar type of cry and hue against the UN in Sudan took place. Back in 2006 When the discussions were underway for UNAMID redeployment, the deposed General Omer Albasheer made intransigently refusal stand. He was made to shut down the cry when the then US assistant secretary of state Dr Jendayi Fraizer made it unequivocally clear and loud that UN force will be there to protect the civilians in Darfur whether Albasheer likes or not. Then the matter was closed permanently until the UNAMID was redeployed.

Sixth: As the organization is the custodian of and in charge of international peace and security, declaration of war against the UN (directly or indirectly) is a full-fledged crime. Here the parties opposing are dismissing the fact that the UN (by virtue of its mandate and duty) is there to make, keep and sustain international peace and security.

Seventh: Thus any support to the call for opposing the UN Mission means fuelling the situation and legitimising any act of sabotage and by definition participating in the crime.

Eighth: Such legitimacy is what the potential saboteurs are desperately looking for. They will definitely use the opportunity to the maximum while the act of their crime is mutually shared.

Ignoring these facts will constituent an act of violation of international law and rules that regulate international peace and security and operations of the UN.

While in the next part of this article I will deal with the seven core questions raised above and the statements been made by these opposing forces, I see it important to conclude this part with a comment made by social media activist, Mr A. B. Abdalla on the position of the Umma Party. Mr A. B. Abdalla wrote:
(I wonder under what kind of influence the Umma Party was when voluntarily
decided to adopt this unusual position and put itself and its supporters in this predicament ?. As it is a matter of conventional wisdom the fact that when one opens the "Pandora box" or the "Can of worms" as the Umma party did today, the logical conclusion is that such person should be prepared to damn with the consequences, whether indeed or unintended and swallow the bitter pill since the law does not protect the fools"! Perhaps this Umma Party’s position can only be likened to that case of African "village court" in which a complaint felt cheated by the King’s verdict and in an emotional mode he told the jury that "he will burn King’s farm" !! The jury caught by surprise and went in total silence. In the next night when the defendant, now turned an offender, clandestinely went to burn down king’s farm, he, to his utter surprise, found a couple of his enemies already there and were busy burning King’s farm. When the case of sabotage brought before the court, his enemies maliciously ganged up and testified against him in unison. When he was proved guilty and sentenced to hard labour, he started crying and asked for clemency but it was already too late).

Trayo Ali is reachable at saharaclub2015@gmail.com