Victory is Ours, Part 1

The introduction to this series reviewed what we had learned of Sudan so far, providing links to previous posts. We now set the stage by examining the situation in the two Sudans - both in the Republic of Sudan, the "North", which could be considered "rump Sudan" after the South declared its independence in the wake of a referendum, and the Republic of South Sudan, or the South. In this post, we examine the North.

The key thing to keep in mind is that Sudan is run by indicted war criminal Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who seized power in a coup in 1989. At the time, Bashir was a colonel in the Sudanese Army. The coup was bloodless, but was backed by Islamist forces. Bashir, who fought alongside the Egyptian Army against Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, introduced an Islamic legal code in Sudan upon seizing power. More recently, he stated that if the South secedes - which it did - he would make Sudan a state governed by sharia.

Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir

Though Bashir's Islamist background does not get a great deal of attention in literature dealing with the situation in the Sudans, it is a factor under the surface which, I believe, has very significant impact on the overall regional situation, especially including the trouble with South Sudan, as well as globally.

To get an idea what Bashir's idea of sharia is - it is not substantially different from sharia as implemented elsewhere - we begin by considering a situation that developed regarding Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein.

Lubna al-Hussein is a Sudanese Muslim. Significantly for Sudan, she is a woman. She was working for UNMIS (UNMIS - United Nations Mission in Sudan; its mandate ended on July 9, 2011, with the independence of South Sudan) when, on July 3, 2009, at a cousin's wedding, Sudanese Public Order Police showed up looking for any women wearing trousers. Along with other women, she was arrested. Ten of the women pled guilty immediately and were given ten lashes each and released. Hussein and two others insisted on a trial.

I now reproduce in its entirety (including two links) an editorial, written by Hussein, telling her story; When I think of my trial, I pray my fight won't be in vain by Lubna al-Hussein, September 3, 2009:

For wearing trousers, I face 40 lashes. This is the brutal reality of Sudan: we live in fear of those who should protect us

Next week I will stand trial in a Sudanese court, charged along with 12 other women with committing an "indecent act" – wearing trousers in a public place. I will face up to 40 lashes and an unlimited fine if I am convicted of breaching Article 152 of Sudanese law, which prohibits dressing indecently in public. As an employee of the UN I was offered immunity, and the chance to escape trial, but I chose to resign from the UN so that I could face the Sudanese authorities and make them show to the world what they consider justice to be.

It will seem absurd to many people that a woman could face this situation in a country that claims to be "the Dubai of the Nile". Much international media coverage of Sudan in recent years may have focused on issues of conflict. But at the same time my country has reaped millions in oil revenues; skyscrapers and modern hotels have sprung up across our capital city, and although the living conditions of most ordinary people have not improved, our government has promised that we are on the path to prosperity.

And my case is far from an isolated one. In fact the director of police has admitted that 43,000 women were arrested in Khartoum state in 2008 for clothing offences. When asked, he couldn't say how many of these women had been flogged. And it's not just about clothing. After my arrest, two girls were arrested in a public place and the police discovered that their mobile phones had video clips of scenes from the hugely popular Arab soap Noor and Mohannad in which the main characters kiss each other. The girls were charged with pornography and given 40 lashes.

In many such cases the court consists of just one policeman and a single judge – with the policeman acting as the complainant, prosecutor and sole witness. And in a growing number of cases, the accused don't even reach court. One man, in dread of what might happen to him, died recently after falling off a building where he had sought shelter after being chased by the security police.

The laws under which we live have not modernised with our economy. Despite a new constitution in 2005, a comprehensive peace agreement and the protocol of human rights, women are still constrained – not only in their freedom of dress but also their freedom to work. Journalists are prevented from speaking out and people are detained without reason.

This is not new: Sudan has a proud and sad history of courageous men and women who have had to fight against repressive laws. They taught me that we should not hide behind privilege but that we should speak out for those who cannot find their voice. My trial next week may put Sudanese justice in the spotlight for a moment. But I hope that people will not look away once my verdict is announced, because there are many greater challenges that await us.

When North and South Sudan signed a peace agreement after 20 years of brutal civil war, both promised to respect international human rights, to overturn repressive laws and prevent the atrocities of the past being repeated. But the censorship, harassment and detention of journalists and human rights defenders continues.

Next spring our country will face elections. Opposition parties will not be able to fight these elections unless the laws are changed to be compatible with our new constitution. The elections are one step towards a referendum in which our brothers and sisters from the South will decide whether they want to remain in a united Sudan or to create a country of their own. These are painful and difficult choices that will decide the future for generations to come.

I feel anger and frustration that our government will not allow people to freely discuss our future. Sudan is a great country and one rich in diversity of faith, beliefs and ways of being. It has enough resources to provide for all its people. But it will never fulfil its great potential unless we are able to contribute to our future without pressure or fear.

When I think of my trial, I pray that my daughters will never live in fear of these "police of security of society". We will only be secure once the police protect us and these laws are repealed. I also pray that the next generation will see we had the courage to fight for their future before it was too late. We need Arab, African, American and European leaders to stand with us and help us make sure that the next chapter of our history is less bloody and brutal than the last. This will require conviction and boldness from their side. I hope they will display the qualities of those Sudanese men and women I most admire.

Some background to and significance of the story can be found at Pants Pants Revolution, dated August 5, 2009; here are the first three paragraphs:

Khartoum -- To the media she is the "Sudan trouser woman." Images of Lubna Hussein wearing the outfit that led to her arrest in Khartoum last month have zipped around the world. News reports give the impression that she is a radical on a crusade, her trial a fight over women's rights in an Islamic capital city. But this impression fails to scratch the surface. What is at stake is no less than a burgeoning social movement that promises to test the authoritarian Sudanese government on a global stage.

Hussein is one of thousands of women arrested each year for one of the "public order" offenses listed in Sudan's criminal code. Article 152, the one relevant to Hussein's case, reads: "Whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or fine or both punishments."

The laws are officially meant to keep the public safe. But in practice, public order police use the vaguely worded regulations to extract bribes from women on the street, while public order justices deliver immediate punishment for infractions, devoid of due process. This means that public order laws are the subject of suppressed but persistent debate inside Sudan.

Notice this last paragraph, about how laws meant to keep the public safe are instead used to oppress the people. :)

The article goes on with a little history, explains how Hussein had immunity due to her work for the UN but waived it to go to trial and draw attention to this law, and talks about how the incident has caused reform-minded activists to start working more closely together. But, it also explains the government's strategy of delay, hoping international attention will die down.

Interestingly, the world's feminists were conspicuously silent on the matter. This lack of feminist response was discussed on the BBC, where commentary addressed how the world's feminists dislike intervening in indigenous cultures.

However, my observation is that the West's feminists sure don't seem to mind when foreigners come to the West and intervene in our cultures, bringing this kind of oppression, in this case sharia, to our lands. Make no mistake about it: when guys like Bashir and the mullahs he empowers take charge here in the West - and that is happening - those feminists who are militant and hypocritical, whose only real goal is the destruction of Western society, will find that they had been sheltered by the very system they loved to hate.

Regardless, in the event, initial court proceedings against Hussein were marked by violent police oppression of her supporters. From Sudan police beat protesters as woman goes on trial for wearing trousers, August 4, 2009:

Police fired teargas and beat supporters of a Sudanese woman facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public shortly before her trial was adjourned this morning.

Police in Khartoum moved in swiftly and dispersed about 50 protesters, mostly women, who were supporting Lubna Hussein, a former UN worker charged with "indecent dressing" in violation of the country's Islamic laws.

Some of the women demonstrators wore trousers in solidarity with Hussein. "We are here to protest against this law that oppresses women and debases them," said Amal Habani, a female columnist for the daily newspaper Ajraa al-Hurria (Bells of Freedom).

Ultimately, Hussein was convicted and sentenced to a fine, which she refused to pay. She was then jailed until the country's journalists' union paid the fine on her behalf. However, from INTERVIEW - Sudanese woman in trouser case defies travel ban, November 23, 2009:

Hussein said the group that paid her fine had close ties to the Sudanese government, which wanted to end the case quietly.

She said she planned to pursue her campaign through the courts and would ultimately go to the African Court of Justice if necessary.

"I have received a lot of threats. Some were outright death threats. But I have faith, and I believe that I will die the day that I am meant to die," she said.

To give a further taste of the flavor of government repression in Sudan, we now turn our attention to some atrocities committed by government forces in the summer of last year, right under the eyes of the UN.

A report entitled In Close Proximity: alleged abduction, detention and extrajudicial killings by Abu Tira, dated October 13, 2011, and published by Harvard Humanitarian Initiative's Satellite Sentinel Project (website), documents the flagrant and blatant murder by Sudan's security forces of a contractor working with the UN, right in front of UNMIS peacekeepers, in addition to other atrocities in close proximity to the UNMIS Compound. In [brackets] I have added explanations and links.

Abductions and Killings

According to multiple sources, fighting in Kadugli started on 5 June. An eyewitness account collected by SSP [Satellite Sentinel Project] alleges that IDPs [internally displaced persons] abducted from the UNMIS compound on 6 June were taken to an area between the CRP [Sudan's Central Reserve Police, armed much more heavily than regular police forces, including mortars, heavy machineguns and, on occasions, artillery; weapons that are far to indiscriminate for what westerners would consider "police" activities] training center and the UN compound and reportedly killed there. Their bodies were dumped in a nearby riverbed, according to the eyewitness. In a similar incident, the August 2011 UNHCHR [UN HIgh Commissioner for Refugees] report describes armed CRP personnel moving in and out of the UNMIS protective perimeter on 8 June, conducting identity checks among the IDPs there. CRP forces reportedly abducted three IDPs suspected of supporting the SPLM-N [Sudan People's Liberation Movement - North].

Also, SSP has received an eyewitness report alleging that CRP, SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces], and PDF [Popular Defense Forces - a paramilitary organization now becoming more important for political organization activities] forces tied civilians to the gates of the Kadugli airport checkpoint on 8 June and beat them. Witness reports communicated to SSP claim that those individuals were later shot and killed, and subsequently buried in a nearby mass grave.

The Murder of Numeiri Philip Kalo

An eyewitness report received directly by SSP contradicts core aspects of the August 2011 UNHCHR report's account of the 8 June abduction and murder of a UN individual contractor. SSP has learned that the contractor, Numeiri Philip Kalo, a Nuba man and known SPLM-N supporter, worked for Tri-Star Fueling and was a Catholic seminarian. SSP has identified discrepancies regarding this incident between witness reports, the leaked UNHCHR draft and the final version of that report released in August 2011.

Eyewitness reports communicated directly to SSP claim that on 8 June Numeiri Philip Kalo, among others, was pulled out of an UNMIS vehicle directly in front of the east main gate of the UNMIS compound. CRP personnel reportedly put Numeiri Philip Kalo in a CRP-operated Toyota Land Cruiser. The CRP then took him around the corner of the UNMIS compound, near the CRP training center, and shot him while Egyptian UNMIS peacekeepers looked on. Eyewitness reports communicated to SSP state that Kalo's body was riddled with bullet holes when it was dumped out of a moving CRP vehicle on the road in front of the CRP training center. An individual who spoke to SSP independently identified the CRP training center on a map, and stated that Numeiri Philip Kalo's body was reportedly dumped on the side of the road in front of the CRP facility.

However, the August 2011 UNHCHR report states that on "8 June, an UNMIS individual contractor (IC) was pulled out of a vehicle by SAF in front of the UNMIS Kadugli Sector IV compound in the presence of several witnesses." The draft report included a notation that this occurred "while UN Peace keepers could not intervene." This point was not included in the final report. Both versions of the report continued with the following language: "He was taken away from the vicinity of the compound and gunshots were heard. Later he was discovered dead by UNMIS personnel and IDPs. Several sources confirmed that the victim was an active SPLM member." Neither version of the UNHCHR report mentions CRP personnel or the CRP facility.

Some key things to conclude: 1) (North) Sudan essentially has no rulebook when it comes to armed conflict; Bashir's forces will do whatever they feel they need to do to win; 2) peacekeeping is a joke; the peacekeepers can't even protect themselves; 3) official UN reports do not tell the whole story even about what is happening to people working for the UN, much less about the local people.

So, Bashir and his government in Khartoum are the bad guys.

However, as this series continues, we will explore some problems with our good guys in South Sudan.

In the Eyes of a Stranger, Part 2

In Part 1 we considered the serious problem of sexual assault that faces our military service personnel. Women in particular are victimized, though there is a real problem with men being assaulted. I am very pained to report that the topic has come onto the front burner again.

The Air Force currently faces a scandal at Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), TX. We begin with an excerpt from 31 Female Victims and Counting in Air Force Sexual Assault Scandal, June 29, 2012:

In what's probably the worst sex assault scandal in the U.S. military in the last 20 years, Air force officials have determined that 31 women have been identified as victims of sexual misconduct and assault at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, where 12 male boot-camp instructors are under investigation for allegedly raping, assaulting, harassing, and having sex with female recruits.

Next, we consider excerpts from 31 female victims identified so far in sex scandal, Air Force says, June 30, 2012

Six of the 12 instructors under investigation for misconduct face charges ranging from rape to adultery. A senior Air Force commander said nine of those instructors were in the same squadron, briefing reporters at the Pentagon at the same time that one of the accused appeared in a Lackland courtroom.

[snip]

Gen. Edward Rice, commander of the Air Education and Training Command [AETC], said the Air Force believes the misconduct is not endemic to the nine training squadrons [of the 37th Training Group, the unit which conducts basic military training for Air Force recruits at Lackland - EL]. He says the sexual misconduct apparently began in 2009 but that the first woman came forward only a year ago.

Those first allegations were levied against Staff Sgt. Luis Walker, who faces the most serious charges and is scheduled to be court-martialed next month [scheduled to begin July 16 - EL]. Walker is charged with 28 counts, including rape, aggravated sexual contact and multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault. He has not yet entered a plea [other sources show SSgt Walker has pled "not guilty" to all counts - EL].

The majority of the instructors under investigation were in the 331st Training Squadron, whose commander was relived from his post last week. Rice said Lt. Col. Mike Paquette, who has not been accused of misconduct, was relieved because of the "unacceptable level" of misbehavior in his unit.

For context, we go back to 31 Female Victims and Counting in Air Force Sexual Assault Scandal (I reproduced the link found in the original):

To understand just how bad this sexual assault scandal is, you need to understand Lackland Air Force Base and its relationship to the Air Force. Located just outside San Antonio, it's where some 36,000 recruits undertake basic training each year. "Lackland is where every American airman reports for basic training – about 35,000 a year. About one in five are female, pushed through eight weeks of basic training by a flight of instructors that are about 90 percent male," report the AP's Lolita Baldor and Paul Weber.

The accused were military training instructors (MTIs). From Lackland trainer bragged of sex, witnesses say, June 29, 2012, which addresses the Article 32 hearing (a preliminary hearing named for the article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which mandates it) concerning the accusations against Staff Sergeant Craig LeBlanc:

The prosecution spent a good deal of time establishing the control trainers have over recruits during 8½ weeks of boot camp and whether they still have that control between the Friday when they graduate and early Monday morning when they leave Lackland.

[snip]

"Did you always follow an MTIs orders?" prosecuting attorney Capt. Kaylynn Shoop asked the airman, 19.

"We didn't have a choice," she said. "Nothing an MTI says is with a question mark."

It always was made abundantly clear, she said, that not following an order would have an adverse effect on a recruit's career in the Air Force.

She testified that LeBlanc and another military trainer, Staff Sgt. Kwinton Estacio, urged her and another recruit to meet them in the supply room. The pair "pinky swore" that they wouldn't have sex with the men.

More information about the alleged misconduct came out at the Article 32 hearing of Staff Sergeant Kwinton Estacio. From Female airmen testify about sex acts with MTIs, June 2, 2012:

When questioned by Capt. Kaylynn Shoop, one of the prosecutors, the now 19-year-old airman described Estacio as a tough and strict MTI.

The airman also said she trusted Estacio.

"He's like a mentor, a role model," she said. "You work with him for eight and a half weeks and he teaches you so many things you didn't think you could do. A lot of us wanted to be like him. He was like a father."

General Rice, the AETC commander under whose authority recruit training at Lackland AFB ultimately falls, has indicated that his investigation thus far shows that the problem is mainly centered around one training squadron, and not permeating the recruit training program at Lackland.

Edward A. Rice, Jr.
General, US Air Force
Commander, USAF AETC

However, in general, the problem of sexual assault does permeate the US military. The Air Force maintains a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program, which takes its definition of sexual assault and consent substantially from Air Force Instruction 36-6001; there are differences, so I quote AFI 36-6001:

Sexual Assault — The following definition of sexual assault has been directed by DoD and is for training and educational purposes only. This definition does not affect in any way the definition of any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Commanders are encouraged to consult with their Staff Judge Advocate for complete understanding of this definition in relation to the UCMJ.

Sexual Assault is defined as intentional sexual contact, characterized by use of force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual assault includes rape, forcible sodomy (oral or anal sex), and other unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful (to include unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact), or attempts to commit these acts.

"Consent" means words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused's use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

Notice in the second paragraph the phrase regarding abuse of authority and in the third paragraph the phrase about submission resulting from fear.

The case against these MTIs illustrates these aspects. The MTI's word is essentially law while the recruit is under the MTI's authority; failure to do what the MTI says could easily get the recruit prosecuted. With this authority comes responsibility; the MTI is expected to behave in an exemplary manner and to use this authority in a wise, moral and lawful manner. Generally speaking, the military teaches recruits to obey orders; this process would be made much more difficult if recruits were simultaneously taught to question their superiors. Indeed, how could a military fight a war if personnel were constantly questioning and debating the orders they receive? It is incumbent upon military authorities, especially in the case of MTIs, to be well within bounds regarding their conduct, especially including orders and anything that could be construed as an order, such as a request or suggestion.

The need for appropriate conduct by military authorities should be obvious. From An Air Force War on Sexual Assault by Anna Mulrine, January, 2012:

Troops of junior rank today have "few privileges and barely any freedom of movement to flee their perpetrators, to seek help when they need it most, or to leave the units or bases where they are being brutalized," said Anuradha K. Bhagwati, a former Marine Corps captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network.

The defense at SSgt. LeBlanc's Article 32 hearing tried to steer the questioning towards the alleged victim. From Lackland trainer bragged of sex, witnesses say:

LeBlanc's civilian defense attorney, Joseph Jordan, tried to begin his questioning by asking her what kind of men she was attracted to, but the prosecution successfully objected. Later, he asked her what kind of panties she was wearing and whether she was aroused.

"Did it make you feel good?" he asked.

"It was uncomfortable," she replied. After leaving the supply room, she went straight to the bus stop, she testified, where, she said she felt "blank."

Jordan also asked about the term "rape."

"I never put that word to it," she said, until after she was questioned by investigators.

This defense strategy is not going to work. Asking whether "it" made the victim "feel good" is admitting implicity that "it" happened, and if "it" happened, then the MTI was at least a little out of bounds when he was expected to be well within bounds; the defense attorney here is implicitly admitting his client's guilt, and is merely trying to establish some kind of extenuation to soften the punishment.

At this point, none of the material that I have seen regarding the accusations against SSgt. LeBlanc or SSgt. Estacio suggests physical coercion or any kind of threat of physical force. However, this is not always the case in other alleged assaults.

In this excerpt, we consider the story of a female airman who was forcibly raped on a temporary duty assignment (TDY, in Air Force parlance) in 2010. From Overcoming sexual assault: A victim's candid story, dated April 13, 2012:

During a temporary duty at a stateside location, that 'friend' stripped her of her clothes, held her down and raped her, as she begged him and pleaded with "no, please stop, I don't want this!" the entire time, she said.

"(The alleged assailant) and I stayed on the same floor of our hotel," recalled Smith. "He came over to my room to watch a movie with me. I didn't see him as a threat and was friends with him at home station, so I didn't see a problem with watching a movie together.

"When he got to my room and started watching the movie, he started trying to touch me and asked if I wanted to (mess around sexually)," she said. "I told him, 'no.' He didn't take no for an answer, pinned me to the bed and stripped off my clothes, then ..."

Smith said she was then raped.

Smith, a 5-foot-tall, 93-pound female was easily pinned down and couldn't break free, she said.

After being raped, the assailant then tried to hug her, in a manner as if they had just made love consensually.

Another story is recounted in An Air Force War on Sexual Assault:

It was in 2006, after eight years in the US Air Force, that SSgt. Marti Ribeiro was raped by a fellow airman while on guard duty in Afghanistan.

She didn’t report the assault immediately. Rather, she waited until the end of her shift, and in the meantime, did what she thought she should do.

"I didn’t take a shower; I didn’t wash my hands," Ribeiro remembers. "I'd watched 'Law and Order' and thought to myself, 'I'm going to do exactly what [lead character] Detective Benson says, ... so they can swab and do the rape kit."

That's not what happened, however.

After her guard shift, Ribeiro searched for the Air Force's sexual assault response coordinator (SARC) at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, where the assault took place just 10 feet from the guard station, and not much farther from Disney Drive — the main road running through the heart of the base.

The SARC sat her down in the middle of a room with other people and asked her what happened. After Ribeiro finished sharing her story, "her first question was, 'Where was your weapon?' "— implying, it seemed to Ribeiro, she should have been able to defend herself. She had left it in the guard post, along with her radio, when she went to have a cigarette break on a smoke deck a few feet away.

"Because I'd left my weapon in the guard shack, she told me I would be charged with dereliction of duty," Ribeiro recalls. "She told me to 'think about it.' " Ribeiro did. She returned to her base housing, showered, and did not speak about the attack to another soul for six months.

Well, that last incident occurred in 2006, so it was presumably due to Bush and the Republican War on Women. But, what about the previously described incident, about the airman who was raped in 2010? And, the developing scandal at Lackland? And recent accusations against cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs?

If helping women is a priority for the Obama Administration, then why, after more than three years with Obama as Commander-in-Chief, have we seen no significant improvement in the rate of sexual assault in the armed forces, or at least in the way in which the problem is being addressed? It is not as if Obama has paid no attention to various personnel issues within the armed forces; after all, gays and lesbians got permission to serve openly. What has Obama done about rampant sexual assault in the military, mainly victimizing women?

By the way: in this post, we only looked at sexual assaults in the Air Force. What's the situation in the other branches?

Skipping down in An Air Force War on Sexual Assault:

As the Air Force publicly grapples with the problem of sexual assault within its ranks, [Charlene M.] Bradley [the Air Force's assistant deputy for force management integration] has found other services are coming to the Air Force for advice.

Convolutions, Part 1

How far down the rabbit hole must I go?

__________

The terms "left" and "right" are too imprecise. They imply a unidimensionality of the political spectrum, but this unidimensionality is a gross oversimplification. Reality is very multidimensional.

Other terms that have more use are "conservative" and "liberal", though their use today is dramatically different from what their use once was and from what their use truly should be.

Originally, "conservatives" wanted to conserve the power of the king; "liberals" sought to put power into the hands of the people, and this implicitly meant at royal expense.

Today, "conservatives" are more accurately those who seek to conserve what has traditionally made America great. Today's "liberals" generally seek to change these things that have made America great; in doing so, they wish to install in America the very systems that have caused other countries to be at best mediocre, at worst hell-on-earth.

Among the things that have made America great, and which liberals have sought so diligently to change, is the idea of limited government and government wherein the people are the masters. America was designed by those who had a real experience at the hands of out-of-control excessive government; America was designed to be a "liberal" country, in the old sense of the word, whereby government power was limited and was controlled by the people through representatives who were popularly elected, and upon whose power many constraints had been placed. What today's conservatives generally seek to conserve is a classic liberal government.

Rightly, though, "conservatism" is not so much a political agenda as it is an attitude toward political agendas; it is a "look-before-you-leap" approach toward political agendas, an approach whereby changes are made incrementally, with continuous assessment of what kind of an impact the changes have before implementing more. In contrast, in this context, "liberalism" means implementing the changes rapidly and drastically. The result of rapid, drastic changes can easily be a big mess which, of course, will require a fix comprised of more drastic changes which, of necessity, are rapidly implemented.

It should come, then, as no surprise that today's liberals, the "left", seek to implement big government programs to fix any perceived societal ill. Such programs, liberally implemented - rapidly, without adequate forethought and without adequate monitoring to see how they are working - result in cures that are worse than the diseases they were intended to treat, in turn causing a need for still more government programs to fix the problems caused by the first government programs.

Some illustrations of this dynamic are in order.

The education system is a perfect example. Initially, the goal was laudable: equal opportunity to education, which was a means for people to make a better life. Equal opportunity meant that it had to be essentially free; perhaps at very modest cost of some kind, but basically free, so the children of even the nation's poorest would have a chance to go to school and build a better life. Fast forward many decades: we spend thousands of dollars per student per year in the government-run school system; in fact, the nationwide per-student average is just over $10,000 per year. The result: students who are behind other industrialized countries in math and science, students who have difficulty reading and writing in English, students whose critical thinking skills are far from adequate; high school graduates unprepared for the workforce or college. The liberal solution: more money for the government-run education industry, and more time in school for our students.

Having our students in the government-run school system is the problem, and more of the problem is not the solution.

This is what they are trying to do to our healthcare system.

The same thinking is behind our government-run pension system.

Those who have astutely studied history understand: nothing is so devastatingly expensive as when the government is going to give you something "free".

Where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to be involved in funding education or healthcare or a pension program for nearly every American?

Constitutionally, such powers should be reserved to the states or to the people. Our nation's founders understood that the most important thing is liberty; King George was making the colonies into a prison, and the founding fathers understood that if people could be let out of that prison, they could take care of themselves. That logic applies beyond the federal government, referencing as well the power of the state governments.

Constitutionally, if governments beyond the local governments are to be involved in education, then it should be state governments, but not the federal government. However, the potential is there for the states to become too involved in local schools, as well.

A similar line of reasoning applies to healthcare, mandatory government pension programs for the general population, and so on. Of course, with the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights against infringement by the states and their political subdivisions, it should not be assumed that states can do whatever they want.

Rarely is government the solution; generally, government is the problem. The founders of this country understood that, and limited the powers of government. All over the world, people suffer under out-of-control government, and flock to the United States to get away from it, whether that out-of-control government is or has been comprised of Nazis, communists, or sharia-enforcing mullahs. Why would anyone want to recreate here in the US that which was Constitutionally prohibited here and which fails so miserably elsewhere?

People as Playthings, Part 1

First, an excellent five-part vid from PBS Frontline, a report of an investigation done in conjuction with ProPublica and McClatchy:

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Watch The Anthrax Files on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

It seems to me the government failed to make its case against Army scientist Bruce E. Ivins. As I see it, it was established that Dr. Ivins was a little eccentric; he may have committed burglary of the sorority houses, and he may have stolen some young ladies' underwear. If this indeed happened, Dr. Ivins broke some laws, but in a college prank sort of way. This does not make him a terrorist or a mass-murderer. The government failed to establish conclusively an opportunity, and it sure failed to establish a motive.

Who had both motive and opportunity? Who could access American weapons-grade anthrax, and would have motive to spread it around?

Who would target not just random American people, but specifically certain elements in the media and certain US Senators?

It seems to me the idea was not to maximize casualties among the American people, but rather, to maximize publicity about the potential for casualties. Unlike hoaxes a few years previously, this time the perpetrator did indeed have high-grade anthrax, and wanted to make sure America knew that, but without inflicting actual mass casualties, and while trying to make it look like Al Qaeda may have been responsible.

Who had both motive and opportuntity to do this?

Unto the Breach: Targeting the TSA

Needless to say, the federal government is increasingly radical and out-of-control, trampling our Constitution, and trampling us.

This is not a partisan issue. Politicians and Presidential Administrations from both sides of the aisle have greatly increased the infringements on our liberties.

It is time to counterattack.

Key features of this counterattack include these:

1) This counterattack must be peaceful and lawful. The time may come when things become violent, but let out-of-control federal authorities begin the violence, and let this happen despite the best, most honest efforts of the American people to fix this country's problems peacefully and lawfully.

2) The counterattack needs to be something Americans can do by themselves and in small groups, especially in informal, ad-hoc groups. Americans are their own leaders, and do not need some big, bureaucratic political party or political action committee to save them from a big, bureaucratic federal government.

Target: The Transportation Security Administration

The TSA presents a clear and present danger to our liberty, so we might as well begin with it.

The TSA is veering farther and farther outside the boundaries of legitimate, Constitutional conduct. Every day we hear new stories of TSA personnel committing crimes and violating our rights under the color of authority. Contrast these daily stories of TSA excesses with our rights under the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here is a list of specific, actionable things anyone can do to begin this counterattack:


1) Contact President Obama (Note: use of the title "President" with Obama's name does not constitute acknowledgement that Mr. Obama lawfully occupies the office of President of the United States; use of this title merely acknowledges that he is acting in that role, whether Constitutionally or not).

Specifically, feedback to the White House can be made in accordance with guidelines and via addresses accessible from the White House contact page. Let Mr. Obama know that the TSA, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is part of the Executive Branch of government, as outlined in Article II of our Constitution and that, ultimately, Mr. Obama will be held legally responsible for the excesses of TSA employees. Point out that these excesses represent a pattern of conduct; they are, specifically, "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object" and their pattern "evinces a design to reduce [the American people] under absolute Despotism".

We will work to remove Mr. Obama from our White House. What is negotiable at this point is the question of how many crimes he will be prosecuted for. If he will exercise his power to end the TSA's violation of our rights, then we will consider an amnesty regarding crimes in this category.

It is important to keep in mind that an amnesty does not mean Mr. Obama will go free. It means that prosecutors representing the American people will consider any extenuating circumstances while deciding what charges to press and what punishments to seek. The more he does to end the unlawful oppressions of TSA personnel, the more consideration Obama will be given as we consider, in court, Obama's culpability.


2) Contact the Department of Homeland Security and let Secretary Janet Napolitano know that we will work to remove her from office, and we will work to hold her accountable for violations of our rights. Remind her that a defense in court that she was "just following orders" will not be adequate. Point out that if she immediately begins to rein in her TSA personnel, amnesty in her case will be considered, proportional to the extent with which she begins to reverse unconstitutional actions taken by her subordinates.


3) Contact the TSA itself. There is a contact page, which specifically allows for input regarding civil rights violations. Also, familiarize yourself with the TSA's senior management. Together with the routing information on the contact page, you can send letters to specific senior managers in the TSA. Make sure they understand that their organization is committing crimes as part of official policy. Consequently, following the precedents of the SS in the wake of World War II, all TSA personnel can be held to some degree accountable for the actions of what will surely be found to be a criminal organization. Mere membership in the TSA is at least suspicious; as senior management, these people are aware of the crimes. Ask them what they are doing to stop the crimes being committed under color of authority. Make sure they understand that persistence on the TSA's present course of action nearly guarantees them a prison term at some point, whereas efforts to acknowledge and correct the problems they have, efforts made immediately and with great zeal, will mitigate their situation.


The above people can be removed from office by Congress. Congress has the power to impeach not only the President, but other officeholders as well. This is spelled out in Article I of our Constitution.

And this brings us to our Legislative and then Judicial Branches.


4) Contact your Congressional Representatives. It is simple to figure out who your representative is: merely go to the House Website and type in your zip code. Alternatively, if you know what Congressional district you are in, you can go to the list of representatives. Let your representative know that you are unhappy with the TSA. Your representative needs to cut funding for the TSA, and introduce articles of impeachment against Obama, Napolitano and other officeholders. Your representatives need to understand that we will be removing some of them from office, whether or not they fight the TSA. But, what happens afterward is still negotiable. They are going to want their Congressional pensions; they will seek other elected offices; they will work in the business world after they leave Congress. For all these things, they will need the good will of the American people, and without our good will, pensions, votes and clients for their business activities might evaporate; they can become persona non grata to the American people, and any business activity with which they are associated can be boycotted. Warn them to do their job, or they will see how fast they can become so many walking stink magnets.


5) Contact your Senators. You can find out who they are from the Senate Webpage and from the Senate's List of Senators. Let them know they need to cut off funding for these violations of our rights, and that they need to vote in favor of impeaching Obama and his minions. Explain to them how our dissatisfaction with them will manifest itself if they fail to do so (loss of votes, loss of customers for any business with which they are associated once they leave the Senate, etc).


6) Any federal judge who rules that the TSA's activities are Constitutional needs to be removed by impeachment. Get the judge's name and the specifics of the ruling, then advertise the problem. Make sure your Representative knows that articles of impeachment are in order, and that your Senators understand which way they need to vote on the impeachment.


Farther down in the Executive Branch:


7) Consider contacting your FBI Field Office. Point out that, as federal agents, their duty is to protect your rights under the Constitution. Explain how the TSA routinely violates these rights, committing sexual assualt, theft and other crimes under color of federal authority. Keep in mind that, while there is a tremendous amount of corruption among the senior leadership and in the Washington area, the field agents tend to be hard-working and honest, and perhaps even still idealistic. There may not be much that they can do, as any actions they undertake will probably be undercut by higher-ups (such as our Attorney General Eric Holder, who likes to arm Mexican drug cartels), but remind our lower-level FBI agents of their duty. Most of them would risk their lives for America; let's see how many will risk their careers. And, perhaps this investment will pay off as honest agents get promoted in coming years.


Transitioning from federal to state government, we continue:


Contact your governors and state officers. You can find out who they are by visiting Politics 1. Specifically, go to the page for governors and statewide candidates, and from there click on your state. You will see links to official websites of state legislatures and governors' administrations, as well as to the campaign websites for candidates for statewide offices.


8) Contact your governor. Remind the governor that it is the duty of the states and their political subdivisions to provide equal protection under the law to all the states' citizens, per our Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let your governor know that federal authorities, in this case TSA personnel, are out-of-control and are committing crimes under color of federal authority. It is the legal responsibility of state law enforcement authorities to arrest TSA personnel for their thefts, sexual assaults and methodical, warrantless searches and seizures. Your governor needs to understand that state law enforcement personnel should in no way be collaborating with illegitimate activities of TSA personnel, such as establishing checkpoints for systematic and warrantless searches and seizures along roadways.

If the Obama regime wants to play hardball, and threatens to make your state a no-fly zone because the governor refuses to allow TSA personnel to abuse decent, law-abiding citizens, remind the governor that intrastate travel is off-limits to federal authorities, and that federal authorities are Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with interstate travel. Interstate commerce can be regulated in manners other than gate-raping and porno-scanning innocent travelers. If Obama threatens to shoot down passenger aircraft that take off without his FAA's approval, state governors can mobilize Air National Guard fighters to escort those civilian aircraft safely to the border of their individual states, and Army National Guard air defense units on the ground can supplement the state's ability to target any federal fighter aircraft threatening a passenger jet; should that federal fighter open fire on a passenger plane, it, in turn, will be fired upon by aircraft and air defense systems loyal to state authorities and to the US Constitution.

As some added thoughts in this category, I should like to point out that the Constitutional crisis is already upon us. The question is, how are we going to respond? Also, during America's first Civil War, President Lincoln was determined to preserve our Union. Slavery was an abomination, and the Republican Party was formed to abolish it, but the war was actually sparked over states' rights issues, with rebel forces firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. To me, another question presents itself: Were Lincoln physically among the American people today, what would be his thoughts? I can't imagine he would be in favor of saving the Union at the cost of our Constitutional form of government. Rather, I think he would be on the side of our Constitution, hoping to preserve it against an out-of-control federal government. I also think he would insist that those Americans who seek to support our Constitution against domestic enemies in the halls of power in Washington move forward with peaceful, legal means, and only resort to armed force in self-defense, leaving it to the federal authorities to fire first. In the winter of 1860-1861, rebel states seceded, then fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. We are neither seceding, nor firing the first shot.


9) Contact your state legislators and candidates for state legislative offices. State legislatures should pass resolutions calling upon the US Representatives and Senators from their states to cut off funding for TSA activities and to impeach federal officers who are violating our laws. Legislatures should also resolve to call upon the governor to stand up to federal authorities who are violating our federal Constitution, and to call upon local law enforcement personnel to arrest TSA personnel who are committing crimes under the color of authority.


10) Contact your local mayor, and have the mayor direct municipal police to take TSA personnel into custody when those TSA personnel violate our rights and commit crimes. Contact your city council, and have them pass resolutions calling upon the mayor to do this. Contact your local sheriff, and have the sheriff arrest TSA personnel who execute unlawful searches and seizures and who otherwise violate our rights. Remind local law enforcement authorities that it is their duty under our Fourteenth Amendment to protect our Constitutional rights.



Other things you can do:

11) If you have to travel by air, get to the airport early. Depending upon your stomach for confrontation and your willingness to be unlawfully detained, you can choose to not cooperate with anything you deem to be excessive or a violation of your rights. While standing in line, talk to the people around you. Find someone you can pair up with, and if TSA personnel want to conduct an intimate search of you, insist that this person witness the activity. Exchange contact information with this person, make some notes about what happened and how, and get the name and identifying data of the TSA personnel who are searching you. File charges against this TSA person, and have your airport companion offer to be a witness in court.


12) Take pictures of your TSA handler. Your TSA handler is an official government employee in a public place performing official duties, so take a photo of that person, and then exercise your First Amendment right to write about the incident at a blog or on Facebook or wherever you hang out online. Let everyone know who this TSA employee was and how this government employee treated you. Have others in line take pictures of this employee for you. If someone who is not traveling with you can accompany you to the airport, have that person film, photograph or otherwise record your experience. Make sure your TSA handler knows that violations of the law will be prosecuted. Sooner or later, justice will be done, and their uniforms and their orders will not protect them from justice any more than uniforms and orders protected Nazi officials and SS men decades ago.



Please keep in mind that most TSA personnel are trying to be decent, law-abiding Americans, and are trying to ensure our safety. Most of them are being misled and victimized by those in power in Washington. When TSA personnel deliberately make an informed decision to abuse their power and violate our rights, that is when they cross a moral line, and deserve far less consideration; until then, help them see the error of their ways, and warn them of what will happen if they insist on conducting themselves in a criminal manner.



Other resources to determine who your government officials are include links at Common Cause and at USA.gov.



From our Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Whom Thy Right Hand Possesses, Part 1

We introduce this series with excerpts from Rochdale grooming gang victim: I was raped by 5 men a day, by Tariq Tahir, May 8th, 2012:

A victim of an Asian paedophile gang described how she was forced to have sex with up to five men a day.

She was 15 when she was targeted by the men and gang-raped at least four times a week.

Speaking after nine men were convicted of plying white girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs, she said her ordeal had ruined her life.

Notice the descriptions: an "Asian paedophile gang" victimized "white girls".

She was targeted by the gang in Rochdale, who at first seemed friendly as they gave her alcohol, cigarettes, food and taxi rides.

But her nightmare began when she was raped. 'He asked me to come upstairs and I didn't really think anything of it,' said the woman, now aged 20.

'He then was saying all the things he had bought for me and that he wanted something back for it.'

The abuse continued for months, until she was arrested for smashing the counter at the takeaway where the men met the girls. She told police about her ordeal but the Crown Prosecution Service decided she would not be viewed as a 'credible witness'.

It was then that the abuse continued with more men.

The comments to the article are enlightening.

First of all, one commentator points out that the expression "Asian" is misapplied, claiming the perpetrators are all from Pakistan.

The reality is that all but one are from Pakistan; the last guy is from Afghanistan.

But, anyone following UK news understands the politically-correct codeword here: the gang was comprised of Muslim men. Two commentators point out the connection to Islam.

Other commentators make the point that the issue here is criminal activity, not religion.

Indeed, one commentator goes so far as to point out that "if Islam meant anything to these men, they wouldnt provide anyone with drugs or alcohol" and that, under Islam, the penalty for rape is death.

Furthermore, members of the Islamic community there have denounced these crimes, and not just in front of TV cameras.

A discussion on Sunni Forum (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3) shows how angry Muslims are about what is happening, and how powerless they feel to stop it. Concerns are that the imams are not addressing the matter; the question arises whether the perpetrators even attend prayers at the mosques; one commentator advises that the perps know what they are doing is wrong; and there are fears that members of the Muslim community who take action will themselves be targeted by the gangs committing these crimes.

One Muslim leader has spoken out consistently and vocally. From Rochdale grooming trial: Split views on race issue, May 8, 2012:

The conviction of nine Asian men for grooming and abusing white girls has prompted strong, split opinions on whether race is an issue in such cases.

A Muslim community leader has said there is a "problem" of British Pakistani men thinking "white girls are worthless and can be abused".

[snip]

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation, said grooming was "a significant problem for the British Pakistani community".

"There is an over-representation [of Asian men] amongst recent convictions in the crime of on-street grooming [and] there should be no silence in addressing the issue of race as this is central to the actions of these criminals," he said.

"They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought; it is this sort of behaviour that is bringing shame on our community."

'Vulnerable young children'

He said community elders were "burying their heads" over the issue and police and local councils should not "be frightened" to address the problem, as there was "a strong lesson that you cannot ignore race or be over-sensitive".

Mr Shafiq said Muslim leaders needed to "reject any attempt to silence the reaction from our community".

The UK is facing a rash of such cases, where Muslim men of Pakistani ethnicity are grooming underage white girls for sex. Mr. Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, and quoted in the passage above, has been vocal in condemning this activity. In a press release from last year, Mr. Shafiq stated:

The convictions yesterday of two ring leaders of a grooming gang sends a clear signal that these crimes are unacceptable and those engaged in such crimes will pay a heavy price.

I pay tribute to the girls and their families who have been brave in giving evidence against these evil men, they will now need all the support from the Authorities to rebuild their lives.

I have been clear in instigatating this debate that these are criminal matters and should be seen in this way, no community or faith ever sanctions these evil crimes and to suggest that this somehow engrained in the community is deeply offensive.

I urge all engaged in this debate to do so with tolerance, honesty and above all based on evidence and not prejudiced positions.

In another statement from last November, Mr. Shafiq had the following remarks:

There must be no hiding place for these criminals, regardless of race or background in our country and we must not shy away from speaking out. The reality is that the majority of child sex cases are carried out by white man but in areas with a large concentration of ethnic minorities there are significant number of abusers who are Asian. We know from many recent convictions that these men come from the Pakistani and Indian communities, to say that ethnicity is not a factor in these crimes is a lie and abject failure of authorities whose primary role is to protect these children. We have and will continue to never hide away from speaking on this issue and the positive feedback received from all sections of our society shows utter disgust at the crimes and also disgust at the authorities for their failure in protecting our children.

Sadly when a recent white gang were convicted in Portsmouth of grooming there was very little coverage in the media but when Asian gangs are convicted there was blanket coverage, some elements of the media are feeding division when we should all be uniting to ensure that there is no safe place for these criminals from any race or background. We would urge the media to responsibly report on these crimes and ensure that they do not tarnish all Asian communities where the overwhelmly majority are disgusted by these sick evil men.

Two things jump out at me: 1) Mr. Shafiq says that it is a lie to deny that ethnicity is a factor; and 2) Mr. Shafiq goes to great pains to point out that whites are more guilty than people of "Asian" descent.

And, the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping - CROP - seems to agree that the matter needs to be addressed regardless of ethnic sensitivities, going so far as to point out the connections to British Pakistani men, but still cautioning against overgeneralizatins; from CROP News Issue 14 Spring 2011

Race and ethnicity

CROP seeks to avoid any unwarranted generalisations or extrapolations in understanding child sexual exploitation and developing responses to it. CROP's practice and philosophy is evidence-based and CROP is aware that sexual exploiters come from various ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. However, much of the debate in the recent media coverage focused on the dominance of British Pakistani men involved in such criminal networks in the North and the Midlands. The media’s spotlight on a particular race and ethnicity of perpetrator in the context of child sexual exploitation has been controversial within the field and some might argue at odds with CROP's stance. As a parent-led charity which represents a cross-section of families, of which many have experienced the sexual exploitation of their children by British Pakistani men and who are pleased that this particularly sensitive issue is now in the public domain, engaging in the debate and accurately reflecting a diverse range of parents' experiences has been exceptionally challenging.

CROP recognises that there is clear condemnation of child sexual exploitation, as contrary to the values, beliefs and best practice of all religions and ethnicities. As such, the potential for cooperation across all communities and traditions is high. CROP is committed to sharing in and promoting this cooperation. This includes: working alongside the vast majority of the British Pakistani community who find the exploitation abhorrent; and addressing the issues which do exist within the small criminal minority within that community.

Of course, I question all this.

From Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs, January 5, 2011

The Times has identified 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them during the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men. The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

In total, 56 people, with an average age of 28, were found guilty of crimes including rape, child abduction, indecent assault and sex with a child. Three of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community.

Several police sources have told The Times that those convicted represent only a small proportion of what one detective described as a "tidal wave" of offending that has been uncovered in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and some Midlands counties.

A senior West Mercia detective has now called for an end to the "damaging taboo" surrounding gang-led on-street grooming, which he blames on a fear among police and child protection workers of being branded racist. Detective Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said: "These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor. No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."

Race is not the issue here, and pointing out the ethnicity of the perpetrators is not racist.

The issue here is more cultural: what makes ethnic Pakistani men feel that they can do these things to girls from outside their community?

Victory Is Ours: Introduction

In Land of the Blacks, Part 1, we very briefly reviewed Sudanese history, and provided the background leading up to the referendum that led to South Sudan's independence. Reviewing this post today, I discovered that the links to embed an audio and a video no longer function. There is now a link to take you to the video, and I am looking for a replacement for the embedded audio.

In Land of the Blacks, Part 2, we reviewed expert testimony before Congress to get an idea of how Bashir's regime in Khartoum operates. In particular, we saw how Bashir lets militias do his dirty work, supporting them by airstrikes which serve little military purpose, but which terrorize the civilian villages and refugee camps. We also saw how International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position, and heard of allegations that Bashir was embezzling billions of dollars of oil money.

In Land of the Blacks, Part 3 we heard of violence leading up to the January, 2011, plebiscite on independence, considered how oil would become a key issue, and noticed that 20% of Sudan's civil service were southerners.

These first three parts were published on January 8, 2011. Land of the Blacks, Part 4 came out on June 6, 2011, and in it we considered the oil from Abyei and the Unity oilfield, and saw how hostilities were already breaking out around Abyei. Governor Taban Deng Gai of Unity State was quoted as stating that there already existed a de facto state of war. And, we put it together: Bashir was using proxy militias backed by his airpower to drive tribes hostile to his rule out of disputed areas, with the goal of moving his own people in. He obviously sought de facto control of disputed areas, which could later be legitimized through votes for "self-determination".

By Land of the Blacks, Part 5, we were considering the mechanics of the hostilities, especially the background of Ahmad Muhammad Harun, and ICC-indicted war criminal whom Bashir had named governor of Southern Kordofan. We came to the conclusion that Bashir had been planning this fight for more than two years, and had been getting his assets (people, militias, military units) in place. And, we saw how, in testimony before Congress, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, pointed out that President Obama was following the same flawed policy relative to Sudan and Bashir that Obama had criticized in 2008.

By this point, it was obvious to me a war was breaking out, so I began the next series on Sudan, entitled The Inter-Sudan War, in June; the title was chosen because the war was obviously beginning along the poorly-defined border between the Republic of Sudan ("rump" Sudan, the north) and the other Sudanese daughter country, the Republic of South Sudan. In The Inter-Sudan War, Part 1, we considered how easy it would be for Bashir to attain his goals in the absence of an effective international response, and we also saw how easy an effective international response could be, given the political will to confront this indicted war criminal.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 2 outlined Bashir's emerging ethnic cleansing of his border areas, and drew parallels with the genocide in Rwanda. We also pointed out a general regional trend of secular dictators and infidels being targeted by Islamic militants, and how Obama was always either doing nothing, or supporting the Islamic militants.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 3 provided more information to support the contention that it was not merely a question of ethnic cleansing, but of Islamic militants doing exactly what Bashir had promised would happen in the event the South seceded: turn the North into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.

It was only this month that The Inter-Sudan War, Part 4 pointed out the conflict was really beginning to heat up, not just with militias terrorizing civilians, but with troops from North and South fighting it out, and in The Inter-Sudan War, Part 5 we considered the political and economic aspects of this fight, and saw how the heavier fighting was sparked by an incursion by Northern troops, which was met by Southern forces pursuing them northward in "hot pursuit" - a "hot pursuit" denounced by the international community, resulting in South Sudan's President Kiir withdrawing those troops, but then facing some domestic pressure as a result.

So, we saw how a war was developing while the rest of the world hoped for peace. Then, we saw how the war was breaking out, while the rest of the world thought it was merely a possibility.

Now, we will begin a new series, entitled Victory Is Ours, in which we will examine how Bashir is winning, while the rest of the world is beginning to realize a war is actually being fought.

The Inter-Sudan War, Part 5

In Part 4 we began an overview of recent events in Sudan. We now go more into depth. In this post, we start by examining some aspects of China's concerns regarding the situation along the inter-Sudan Border. From Sudan tensions imperil China's investments, April 7, 2012, we have a report by Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri:

Mentioned in the report is South Sudan's expulsion of Liu Yingcai, head of South Sudan's biggest oil company, the Chinese and Malaysian-owned Petrodar. Liu was accused of helping the government in Khartoum steal $815 million worth of oil; we examine excerpts of South Sudan expels Chinese oil firm boss from February 22, 2012:

South Sudan has stopped production after Sudan seized oil - Khartoum says this is because of unpaid transit fees.

[snip]

Oil makes up 98% of Juba's budget - but its only export route is through its northern neighbour.

Before the shutdown, China was the biggest buyer of Sudanese oil, relying on it for nearly 5% of its needs.

It has good relations with the Khartoum government - and was a key player in trying to get the two sides to come to an agreement over the oil crisis.

In Part 4 we heard about this, and we heard, in an interview with South Sudan's Minister of Information Dr. Marial Benjamin, that Khartoum ("North" Sudan) was charging Juba (the Republic of South Sudan) exhorbitant transit fees, until Khartoum just started stealing the oil altogether - allegedly, nearly $1 billion worth. It was at this point that South Sudan cut off the flow of oil through the north.

This situation regarding oil was one of four causes identified by Professor Alex de Wall as combining to generate the current crisis.

From Alex de Waal: Currently, it’s war for North and South Sudan, April 24, 2012:

Economic Factors

Pre-secession oil revenues for North Sudan constituted 55 percent of its national budget. North Sudan has experienced a 40 percent drop in oil revenues since secession, a decrease in budget which would require mitigation either by austerity, international assistance or transitional financial assistance from the South. None of these three has taken place. In December, as a result of the dire economic situation in the North, the Khartoum government started taking oil that rightly belonged to the South. This prompted the South's oil shutdown – de Waal states that the South "didn't really do their sums" with regard to the financial implications of this this decision. At some point, in the near future, the South Sudanese government will simply run out of money. If the government has no money then quite rapidly the South may become ungovernable.

It is with the greatest of hesitation that I dispute the conclusions of Professor de Waal, who is very well-versed on the situation in Sudan.

However, I think that perhaps the South did "do their sums" - at first, they paid exhorbitant transit fees, as indicated by Dr. Benjamin, in order to keep the oil flowing and their own money coming in from the proceeds of its sale.

But, then, when Khartoum just started stealing the South's oil outright, Juba was in a position where, instead of getting an income at an exhorbitant fee, Juba was simply pumping oil and essentially giving it away to Khartoum which, in turn, was using the money not to build agricultural infrastructure, which the North desperately needs, but to prosecute a war against rebels which the North claimed were being supported by the South.

Why give something - oil - and get nothing in return? Worse, why give resources for free to a country which is essentially committing aggression against you, and which is run by internationally-indicted war criminals with a history of committing similar aggressions elsewhere? I think Juba did their sums, and came a conclusion: the loss of revenue for the South, which, as we have seen, is 98% of their income, is painful, but had already occurred. The South merely interdicted the theft and subsequent misuse of Juba's own resources to prosecute war against Juba.

Not only is this both a cause and a result of the ongoing hostilities, but this also ties back in to China. China buys 67% of Sudan's exported oil. From A Q&A on oil in Sudan, March 16, 2012:

Q.Who are currently the largest buyers of Sudanese/South Sudanese oil?

EIU: The major customers of Sudanese and South Sudanese oil is/will be China. In 2010, China acquired 67% of Sudan's oil exports, followed by Malaysia, Japan and India.

In 2010, Sudan produced 470,000 b/d, of which 100,000 b/d was used for domestic consumption, leaving about 370,000 b/d left for export. Of this latter total, about 67% was exported to China.

With Sudan now broken up, South Sudan now produces about 345,000 b/d and Sudan about 150,000 b/d. These ar estimates.

As we saw above, this accounts for 5% of China's oil needs - a volume that could be covered by increases in production by other suppliers. But, the economic impact for Khartoum and Juba is more significant. Skipping down:

Q.Does South Sudan have any other industry aside from oil, or are they wholly dependent on energy exports for their income?

EIU: South Sudan is virtually entirely dependent on oil exports for its national revenue, 98% in fact. Half of Sudan's government revenue and 90% of Sudan's export revenue is dependent on oil sales.

With most oil produced in the South, and with all Southern oil having to transit the North for export, and with both governments heavily reliant on oil revenues, it is not surprising that oil revenues top the list of disputed issues.

(Source for last two images.)

As I have explained in previous posts, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has stated that (North) Sudan's Bashir invents conflict to create a better negotiating position.

Sudan's President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir

Given that the North is only heavily reliant on revenues from oil exports, but that the South is almost totally reliant on such revenues, Bashir may have figured he could provoke a fight over this matter, knowing that time is likely on his side - especially if international opinion is divided regarding the war, rather than being firmly against Khartoum.

And, that is exactly what has happened.

South Sudan's armed forces moved into disputed territory - Heglig - generally recognized by the world as belonging to the North, until such time as a settlement is negotiated. But, it is worth recalling South Sudan's Minister of Information Dr. Marial Benjamin's words in an interview, the audio of which was presented in Part 4: that the South's forces moved into Heglig in "hot pursuit" of forces from the North. Under pressure from the international community, President Kiir withdrew these troops, and this move has met with some dissatisfaction among leaders from the South.

I can't help but wonder if Bashir didn't provoke this deliberately, knowing he was in a better position to weather the economic storm that would result from shutting off the flow of the South's oil and heating up the war, and knowing that his opposite number, President Kiir, was perhaps a little more sensitive to the political fallout from any result or response than Bashir himself was?

Stay tuned for more.