Friday, March 31, 2006

China’s Direct Responsibility in Sudan’s Ethnic Cleansing


Sudan’s Defense Minister is currently visiting its largest weapons supplier, China.

As reported by the official press agency of China, Sudan’s Defense Minister was greeted by its Chinese counterpart, Cao Gangchuan: “China and Sudan, since forging diplomatic ties in 1959, have enjoyed stable development of friendly and cooperative relations… The Chinese armed forces attach importance to developing relations with the Sudanese armed forces, and are ready to deepen the cooperation between the two sides in various fields”

As a matter of fact, this military cooperation has been going on for a long time, despite the fact that Sudan has been engaged into massive ethnic cleansing. For many years, Chinese have supplied the Sudanese governments with jet fighters, helicopters, armored vehicles, tanks, and weapons factories. According to the Sudan tribune, “Sudan’s air force recently bought $100 million worth of Shenyang fighter planes, including a dozen supersonic F-7 jets, and also purchased 34 other fighter-bombers from Beijing”.

As China is Sudan’s main weapons suppliers, it’s likely that its arms have been used in the slaughtering of millions of innocent Black civilians. Not only China has a direct responsibility in the murdering and displacement of these innocent African villagers, but it also played a key role in protecting the Arab regime of Khartoum. Using its seat at the United Nations Security Council, China has been Sudan's main diplomatic ally and has systematically threatened to veto any resolutions targeting its partner.

While some may wonder why China struck a partnership with a country widely recognized as being responsible for a massive genocide, the reason is unfortunately simple: oil. In exchange for the invaluable Chinese’s military and diplomatic support, Sudan provides more than 70% of its oil exports to China, and now accounts for close to 10% of China’s oil imports. As part of the relationship, government-owned China National Petroleum Corp has invested billions of dollars in developing oil fields and refineries in Sudan.

It’s obvious that China would do anything to satisfy its thirst for energy, key driver of its domestic growth. In the name of Oil, China provides tens of billions of dollars, sophisticated military equipment, key diplomatic protection to rogue regimes around the world, including Sudan and Iran. And the world is watching silently as millions of blacks are being slaughtered, displaced, or enslaved by an Arab-Islamic regime that is fed by the Chinese appetite for oil.


For an historical perspective on the ethnic cleansing that has claimed millions of lives in Sudan, read this post. For a deeper understanding of China’s military and economic relationship with Sudan, read this article.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

A Saudi’s Secret Nuclear Program?

According to the German magazine Cicero, Pakistani scientists are currently helping Saudi Arabia to build its own nuclear program. After having its nuclear program been heavily financed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is now returning the favor.

As the AFP reports:
“Saudi Arabia is working secretly on a nuclear program, with help from Pakistani experts, a German magazine reports in its latest edition, citing Western security sources.

During the Hajj pilgrimages to Mecca in 2003 through 2005, Pakistani scientists posed as pilgrims to come to Saudi Arabia in aircraft laid on by the oil-rich kingdom. Between October 2004 and January 2005, some of them took the opportunity to ‘disappear’ from their hotel rooms, sometimes for up to three weeks, it quoted German security expert Udo Ulfkotte as saying.

According to Western security services, the magazine added, Saudi scientists have been working since the mid-1990s in Pakistan, a nuclear power since 1998 thanks to the work of the now-disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Cicero, which will appear on newsstands on Thursday, also quoted a US military analyst, John Pike, as saying that Saudi bar codes can be found on half of Pakistan's nuclear weapons ‘because it is Saudi Arabia which ultimately co-financed the Pakistani atomic nuclear program’.

The magazine also said satellite images prove that Saudi Arabia has set up in Al-Sulaiyil, south of Riyadh, a secret underground city and dozens of underground silos for missiles.

According to some Western security services, long-range Ghauri-type missiles of Pakistani-origin are housed inside the silos.”

We should not be surprised by this news, as it’s obvious that Arab states will not remain on the side-line while one of their most dangerous neighbors, Iran, is about to have nuclear weapons. Whether they acquire or build nuclear weapons, leading Arab States will, sooner or later, need some form of deterrence. Welcome to a fanatic and nuclear Middle East…

Once again, the source of nuclear proliferation in rogue states leads to Pakistan. As mentioned in a previous post, Pakistan: A Friend or a Major Nuclear Threat?, our unwillingness to confront Pakistan on its past nuclear collaboration with Iran and Libya, and to put those responsible behind bars, may end up being a suicidal mistake for the US.

The Quote of the Day from Our Iranian Friends

"Today the Iranians are hand-in-hand with the Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis and Palestinians initiating a new trend that will free Palestine and will see the defeat of the Zionists and the US's greater Middle East plan", said the head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards on state television.

Once again, the Iranians are clearly stating their objectives. Question is: what are we waiting for?

Saturday, March 25, 2006

A History of Ethnic Cleansing in Sudan



Arab Domination

Since its independence in 1956 from Britain, the governments of Sudan have always been controlled by the Arab ethnic minority. Deriving its name from the Arabic “Bilad Al Sudan” which means “Land of the Blacks”, Sudan has been a victim of numerous invasions and has historically been an important source of slaves for Arab traders. As a result, Sudan is now divided in hundreds of Black, Arab, and mixed ethnies, tribes, and languages. In the ethnic census of 1956, Arabs represented less than 40%, and Blacks more than 50% of Sudan population.

Except for a 10-year quiet period, Arab governments have tried to force the country, and mainly the Black Animist and Christian South, to adopt the Arab language, culture and even the religion of Islam. This imposition took another level in the early 1980s when the government of Sudan instituted the traditional Islamic law (Shariah) including punishments ranging from amputations for theft to public lashings for alcohol possession in all the regions of Sudan.

Atrocious Ethnic Cleansing

Driven by Islamic radicalism, a sense of Arab racial superiority, as well as an economic interest in the oil-rich South region, successive Arab Muslim governments and Arab tribes engaged into massive genocide.

In South Sudan, systematic persecution, killings, rapes and enslavement of Black Animists and Christians took place over the last few decades, mainly since the 1980s. Experts estimate that, as a result of this ethnic cleansing, more than 2 million civilians have died and more than 4 million were displaced either internally or to neighboring countries. In addition, and in line with a long tradition of Arab slavers in Black Africa, tens of thousands of South Sudanese were captured and enslaved. The testimonial of Francis Bok who spent 10 years of his life as a slave is a must-read on this topic. Not only were these Black Sudanese forced to work for free in terrible conditions but they were, and may still be, subject to atrocious conditions: A recent field research conducted by Christian Solidarity International (CSI) discovered that over 95% of the Sudanese slaves attested to being frequently beaten, nearly 60% of women reported being victim to gang rape and over 33% to genital mutilation. Another 60% recalled being forced to convert to Islam.

In the last few years, the ethnic cleansing efforts have moved from the Black Animist and Christian South to the Black Muslim region of Darfur. In less than three years, more than 400,000 civilians were slaughtered and more than 2 million have been displaced, living in squalid camps and constantly fearing the next Arab raid.

Clear Government Responsibility

The ethnic cleansing that has been taking place over more than 2 decades has been organized and financed by the Arab Sudanese Government. As Human Rights Watch puts it, “despite persistent Sudanese government characterization of the Darfur conflict as a tribal conflict, and repeated denials of state coordination of abusive militia groups, there is irrefutable evidence of a Sudanese government policy of systematic support for, coordination of, and impunity from prosecution granted to the ‘Janjaweed militias’, a policy that continues to this day…The pattern of joint army-militia attacks supported by intensive aerial bombardment demonstrated in North Darfur became standard as the conflict spread to other areas of Darfur. In many cases, villages were first heavily bombed, then the Janjaweed and army ground forces moved in, again with aerial support, to ensure the ‘cleaning up’ of any remaining civilian presence.” This is the same pattern as the successful ethnic cleansing strategy used in South Sudan years before.

Future of Sudan?

In the last 20 years, close to 3 million Blacks have been ethnically cleansed and more than 6 million others have been displaced. Besides the targeted killings, mass rapes, forced displacement and enslavement, hundreds of African villages have been destroyed.

Will the country whose name means “Land of the Blacks” soon deserve such a name? Whether we call it genocide or a crime against humanity, no one has yet been punished or brought to justice. Why are we not forcing Sudan to stop this massive slaughtering and to enable its Black population to live freely in their own country? The silence of the UN, the West, the Muslim countries and the rest of the World is deafening. Why do you think our leaders are silent in the face of the slaughtering, enslavement, and displacement of millions of Blacks? Have we not learned from the genocide of Armenians, Jews or Rwandans? When will “Never Again” be words that we won’t have to use anymore?

Saturday, March 11, 2006

The Latest Anti-Semitic Case in France: A Rap Song

A few weeks after the discovery of the horrible torture and death of a young French Jew, Ilan Halimi, a virulently anti-Semitic rap song is becoming a hit in the French suburbs.

Intitled “F… the Jews”, this 3-minute song, mixing French and Arabic words, is one of the most disturbing pieces of Anti-Semitism that we have heard in recent years. Some highlights are:
- “We dedicate this F. song to the Jewish SOBs”
- “F. Israel and the US”
- “Jews are cysts that should be removed and burnt,…, cockroaches that need to be crushed and exterminated until the last one”
- “Hitler, this crazy guy, understood that we needed to gas them all”, and so on so forth.

The authors of this song are anonymous, but pretend to be part of a well-known band called pass-pass.

Needless to say, the song is spreading like wildfire….

The French song can be heard here

Monday, March 06, 2006

Annan’s Latest Project: A Counter-productive Facelift of the UN Human Rights Commission

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is currently urging the adoption of a text transforming the Human Rights Commission into a Human Rights Council.

In an excellent analysis, Anne Bayefski, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, explains why this project would be “an enormous step backward for the international protection of human rights and the spread of democratic governance”. As she explained, not only the project would fail to address the heart of the problem with the commission, which is its membership, but it would even worsen it.

Here are some the excerpts:
“Current members include some of the world's worst human-rights violators: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Throughout the months of negotiations over a new entity, such states vehemently opposed efforts to introduce criteria for membership on the council. They succeeded. Not one criterion is included. Instead, the draft merely suggests 'when electing members' a state's human-rights record be 'taken into account.' Even states under Security Council sanction for human-rights violations (although this includes, at the moment, only Sudan and Côte d’Ivoire) would not be excluded automatically…

There is a provision for suspending a Council member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights. But the step can only be taken with the agreement of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly. Fifty percent of the General Assembly could not even agree that Sudan was guilty of human-rights violations in November of 2005…

Special sessions of the commission can be called by just one third of the council's membership. Although this feature has been hailed as an improved capacity to deal with urgent human rights situations, the membership of the new council will make it more likely that special sessions will be about the United States and Israel rather than China or Sudan…

The proposal significantly shifts the balance of power away from the Western regional group, including the United States. The African and Asian regional groups will hold 55 percent of the votes. The proportional representation of the Asian group will represent the greatest increase and the representation of the Western group the greatest decline….

There is no doubt the United States would be the biggest single loser from the creation of this body. But more generally, U.S. support is unwarranted because the name change from Commission to Council will erroneously suggest renewed credibility in the absence of real reform.”

When will the UN finally fulfill its mission and provide the help the world so desperately needs? How long will our democracies accept that such an important world body and such a critical human rights commission be blackmailed and led by ruthless dictatorships? In the meantime, millions of people are displaced and killed in countries such as Sudan, and the UN remains silent…

Finally and on the topic of Kofi Annan and his biased leadership, I remain puzzled that nobody complained about the fact that Annan received the half-million dollars Zayed International Prize for the Environment a few weeks ago. While he announced that he would use the money to fund a foundation for agriculture and women's education in Africa, it’s still abnormal that a leader of the UN body would be allowed to receive a monetary prize and on top of that from the UAE, a country blatantly violating Human Rights.

As reported by Anti-Slavery, , “Children continue to be trafficked from countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen to be used as camel jockeys in the UAE. The use of children as jockeys in camel racing is itself extremely dangerous and can result in serious injury and even death. Some children are also abused by traffickers and their employers (e.g. depriving them of food and beating them). The children's separation from their families and their transportation to a country where the people, culture and usually the language are completely unknown to them, leaves them dependent on their employers and de facto forced labourers.” “The trafficking of children for use as camel jockeys is prohibited by ILO Conventions 29, 138 and 182 and by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - all of which have been ratified by the UAE.”

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Pakistan: A Friend or a Major Nuclear Threat?

In a visit to Pakistan, Bush praised President Pervez Musharraf and recognized Pakistan again as a major ally in the 'war against terror'. It’s undeniable that General Musharraf has been very helpful in fighting the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan and in reducing Al Quaeda capabilities, and deserves much credit for his courageous stance.

That being said, Musharraf has so far failed to transform Pakistan into a stable and long term friend of the United Sates:

- Pakistan is still home to thousands of madrassas teaching poor kids a very intolerant form of Islam. Financed by another ally of the US, Saudi Arabia, these madrassas have been a fertile recruiting ground for Islamo-fascists, and, in the recent past, were the places where young afghans later known as the Taliban, were trained.

- By suppressing democratic reforms while benefiting from an unabated support from Bush, Musharraf has increased the anti-American sentiment in his country. In January 2004, a senior US expert testifying before a Senate panel, suggested that “Pakistan is probably the most anti-American country in the World right now, ranging from the radical Islamists on one side to the liberals and Westernized elites on the other side”.

- While the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, is widely recognized as having been the main source of nuclear technology and know-how to the worst enemies of the US, Musharraf has always been protecting him. At a time when we are trying to gather facts against Iran and to limit nuclear proliferation, such a protection is highly detrimental.

Target of many assassination attempts, Musharaf’s life is obviously at risk. And if such an attempt succeeded, we would be facing the risk of having a nuclear Pakistan be led by Islamo-fascists. With that in mind, are we really doing the right thing in Pakistan? Are we effectively transforming the local madrassas, promoting democracy, spreading pro-US sentiment, and building a back-up plan to control Pakistan’s nukes? I am afraid that we are not, but let’s hope that I am wrong.

When Are We Going to Stop the Iranian Masquerade?

At a press conference in Tehran today, Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, reiterated that his country won't renounce its right to enrich uranium and might reduce its oil exports in response to UN sanctions.

Once again, Iran uses the oil blackmail to influence our policies and it can easily do so, as it has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia) and the third largest oil reserves in the world. How ironic is it that a country that pretends to be desperately in need of (nuclear) energy is using the very fact that it hold so much (oil) energy to force us to agree. Is that not the biggest masquerade, or farce, of all time?

Iran does not need nuclear energy, but needs a nuclear bomb. And until we recognize this fact and confront Iran accordingly, we will expose ourselves to great dangers. Speaking of which, letting the Russians negotiate on our behalf may prove to be a highly dangerous move, as Russians are too biased toward Iran to be trusted.

This farce would be almost funny if we were not dealing with the most dangerous Islamo-fascist country in the world and with a weapon that can destroy the planet in a matter of minutes.

Some would say that even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, that would not be a threat to Europe and to the US, but just to Israel. But that would be as stupid as saying in the 30s that Hitler would only be a threat to Austria… We are dealing with a country led by fascists driven by the desire to impose Islamic law on the world, and strategically placed in the middle of a region that holds the largest reserves of oil. Do we want Iran to have nuclear bombs? If not, it would be about time to stop this masquerade…

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Will the 12 Fatwas be Next?

A few days ago, 12 well-known European intellectuals published a courageous manifesto in a French magazine warning against Islamism. Here is the text of the manifesto:
"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

Recent events, prompted by the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values.

This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.

It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism between West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism is nurtured by fear and frustration.

Preachers of hatred play on these feelings to build the forces with which they can impose a world where liberty is crushed and inequality reigns.

But we say this, loud and clear: nothing, not even despair, justifies choosing darkness, totalitarianism and hatred.

Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

Its victory can only lead to a world of injustice and domination: men over women, fundamentalists over others.

On the contrary, we must ensure access to universal rights for the oppressed or those discriminated against.

We reject the 'cultural relativism' which implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions.

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of 'Islamophobia', a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it.

We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark"

Information on the signatories can be found here.

Once again, and because of the violent reactions to the 12 cartoons, Europeans decided to stand up for their values and their societies. Published a week after Al-Jazzeera aired a must-see video critical of the Muslim world, it seems that all over the world, people are increasingly vocal about the threat to our modern civilization, and call it by its real name: Islamism or Islamo-fascim. When will our leaders also call this major threat by its name and not use the politically correct "War against Terror"?

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Freedom of Speech in the Middle East: A Must-See Video

In an interview aired on Al-Jazeera TV, Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist, criticized the Muslim world in a particularly harsh and daring way. Excerpts thanks to memritv.org:


“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings...

The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

This video aired on February 21, 2006 is a must-see. Trancript can be found here.

It’s amazing that such a speech could be aired in the Middle East, where dissenting voices are not tolerated. Should a program like this give us hope that the Middle East is evolving? Or should we fear that Wafa Sultan may be the next name on a fatwa?