Sri Lankan Tamils: Learn lessons from what happened to Sudan
by Shenali Waduge on 10 Jan 2014 3 Comments

Is it just a coincidence that virtually all the world’s current conflicts finds roots in British divide or rule policies or the policies of other European colonial rulers? Sudan’s case is no different. The handful of nations being used as the big bullies in a new wave of military interventions on the pretext of solving conflicts devise their plans irrespective of religion, ethnicity, race, but solely on realizing profit through plunder.


Leaders and their stooges are mere puppets in a game that today is being carved out by an invisible set of people, which is why Gen. Wesley Clarke said in 2001 that seven countries were earmarked to be taken out in five years – Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Lebanon were on that list. So was Sudan. Should we be surprised that in 2011 Sudan was divided and made into two separate nations? The plans to divide, militarily intervene, separate, are all planned and politicians only help execute this plan.


South Sudan was separated purposely by the British, depriving the South of economic and social development. British chose to invest in the Arab North over Christian South Sudan. The North was more developed and more populated. To make matters worse with the intent of subverting Islam from within, Britain deliberately created the Wahhabi movement in the North while Christian missionaries were used to ensure Islam did not trickle to the South. The British are said to have planned to attach South Sudan (Christian) to British Colonial East Africa as well.


Another policy adopted by the British was ‘indirect rule.’ In other words, in order to deny educated and urban Sudanese from influencing social and political life, Britain gave power to the tribal leaders dividing the South into hundreds of chiefdoms that were to function separately. This resulted in Northern officials being transferred out of the South, trading permits withdrawn to Northerners and speaking Arabic and wearing Arabic dress discouraged (Ref Southern Policy Document).


This Southern Policy was reversed in 1946 with British now saying that the Sudanese were ‘inextricably bound, both geographically and economically to the Arab north’. This was a total shift of Britain’s earlier policy, many say simply to repay North Sudan for helping Britain during World War II.


But when policies that ingrain hatred between people living in the North against those in the South in a systematic program are implemented, how can the people change? Britain had drilled into the minds of the Sudanese that the North was different from the South and vice versa, and this culminated in a large scale armed conflict in the mid-1950s. The armed conflict in Sudan is not substantially different to what happened in Sri Lanka. It should not be too difficult to read between the lines of every policy adopted by the British and other colonial rulers. Fast forward post-independence virtually all these former colonies are experiencing turmoil genetically engineered by the British through Christian missionary education and the social system they fostered.


In fact, the similarity was such that the army mutiny in South Sudan can be compared to the Catholic Action and the army attempted coup by Christian officers to overthrow the Sirimavo Bandaranaike Government in Sri Lanka.


The British withdrew from Sudan after occupying it since 1899 when it was certain a power struggle would ensue there, and decided to offer independence to Sudan in 1956. In Sudan it was the Christian South that was segregated by the British, while in Sri Lanka the Sinhalese Buddhists became the target. If the South did not wish to participate in the Sudanese Government post-independence, Northerners in Sri Lanka echoed the same line in Sri Lanka. This was done by importing a Christian convert to start a Tamil Only state. Though Arab-dominated North Sudan was economically far more developed than the South, this was not the case in Sri Lanka. With English education through Christian missionaries made available to minorities and a handful of elite Sinhala families willing to work to the dictates of the British, it was they who held jobs and had the power of purchase. Though numerically the Sinhalese Buddhists were greater in number, their comforts in comparison were meagre.


Reasons for interest in Sudan


The West’s interest in Sudan is OIL. Sudan is said to have oil reserves rivaling those of Saudi Arabia as well as natural gas, and has one of the world’s three largest deposits of high-purity uranium and the fourth largest deposit of copper. To tap into this the roundabout way was to sponsor separatist movements in South Sudan in a bid to force a peace agreement that set off plan B – Darfur (in West Sudan) where US pretends to act as mediator while underhand getting its closest African allies to help train SLA and JEM rebels.


Then the US gets its media to promote atrocities committed by Sudan’s Central Government and Jan Jawid militias, described as an ‘Arab’ onslaught against ‘African’ people. These are of course all lies because all Arabs and all Africans are indigenous and equally all are BLACK, all are MUSLIM and all are local and all are Sunni Muslims.


But that doesn’t sell over international media, so a spin is needed. The crisis in Darfur was about scarcity of water for agriculture in view of the drought. Darfur has 35 tribes and ethnic groups (Sudan has over 400 ethnic groups). People died in Sudan from preventable and treatable diseases because of 19 cruise missile attacks ordered by President Bill Clinton on August 20, 1998 at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum which provided 60% of the medicine in Sudan. The medical facility was not rebuilt or compensation given. The lies about Darfur led to 7000 African Union troops in Darfur, backed by US-NATO. Thousands of UN personnel are supposedly overseeing refugee camps for those dislocated by drought, famine and war – their function is not to provide food. They are paid to destabilize Sudan further. Sri Lankan Tamils should note the dangers of continuously seeking foreign intervention. None of the UN humanitarian missions after endorsing resolutions have been humanitarian.


Sri Lankan Tamils must note that US troops carrying UN flags invaded Korea in 1950 and that led to 4 million deaths. The same UN flag prevails and US has occupied and divided the Korean peninsula and incidentally the UN Chief is South Korean! UN troops were deployed in the Congo in 1961 and the tragic fate that befell Patrice Lumumba haunts us still as does the death of Dag Hammarskjöld, former UN Secretary General, who did not belong to the imperial system. US pushed a UN mandate in 1991, bombing Iraqi civilian infrastructure including water purification plants, irrigation and food processing plants, starving Iraqis through sanctions. US also got UN to send troops to Yugoslavia and Haiti which is a cover up for US and EU intervention and occupation. Peace and Reconciliation has been made into a joke by these Western nations.


Going back, US and EU imperialism is what generated the genocidal slave trade that crippled Africa, uprooted the indigenous population of America; three-quarters of the world was looted by these colonial powers. Now they are returning for a second round of looting via military interventions based on concocted lies that are being authorized via the UN.


In the case of Sri Lanka, the ‘something must be done to stop the carnage’ that worked in Sudan did not work in Sri Lanka because the Government crushed the LTTE. There is nothing in the present to justify a foreign presence in Sri Lanka, so the next option is to place a UN mission to study what happened in the last 4 months! Meanwhile, people are going on with their lives.


From 1983 until 2005, the war in southern and central Sudan left more than two million people dead and drove some 4.5 million civilians from their homes. From 2003 to the present, the war in Darfur has killed at least 200,000 (possibly up to 400,000) people and driven more than 2.5 million people from their homes. The Sudan Caucus, in partnership with their new Save Darfur allies, also secured over $6 billion in humanitarian aid, between 2005 and 2010, to the war-affected areas in Sudan. Incidentally those that were calling for intervention in Sudan were the Christian Evangelicals and the Zionists. When the New York Times says ‘Out of Iraq-Into Darfur’ it has to mean something…. The headlines often are the giveaways… just like a recent editorial in Sri Lanka advised Sri Lanka to ‘join us and we’ll drop the charges’ – Gaddafi took this option but ended up being killed and Libya is in total disarray.


South Sudan is today an independent Christian nation. Its literacy rate is just 27% and it is one of the poorest countries in the world. All is not rosy in that new state either. Emergency has been declared. Media says the people are ‘begging’ for UN intervention. That ‘begging’ has to be surely what was planned by those who helped create the outbreak of violence as the rebels across Sudan are all funded by Western sources through African allies. Independent South Sudan of Black Christians will soon be another Western base like Kosovo. Those planning the new Christian state would ensure the existing Christians would be busy fighting each other while the plunder of Sudan continues unabated.


Hindu Tamils have been taken for a ride by the Christian bodies that play the angel on behalf of aggrieved Tamils against the Sinhalese. It is a plan to make a Christian Eelam that would then reach out to do to India what they did to Yugoslavia – an India divided into numerous ‘independent’ states all under Western influence but all waging some war/conflict with each other. Surely, Tamils should be intelligent enough to take the examples that are piling before them and decide to address the real danger for the entire country and the entire populace.  


In the context of similarities between Sudan and Sri Lanka, what Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamils espousing a separate state under whatever name should now observe is how Sudan is falling apart, especially the region that was said to enjoy complete autonomy, liberation and freedom. South Sudan leaders fell for traps just like Gaddafi. Groups of people around Sri Lanka’s leaders are peddling this ‘obey the west’ option, which, if taken, would only seal their fate and totally destroy a 2500 year old civilization as well. Let Sri Lanka’s leaders not take that option. Leaders who showed mettle in taking on the diplomatic offensive during the heat of the war should not lose their wits in peace time.

User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top