Rebel Leader Targeted By Sanctions: Why Him?

Posted on June 1, 2007
Filed Under General Thoughts, Darfur, America |

Did you guys notice something about the recently announced sanctions on Sudan? There are numerous rebel leaders playing their part in running the Darfur show, but only one got singled out.

The companies named by the Treasury Department yesterday include a sugar producer, an automobile company and a vegetable oil producer. The administration also singled out two senior officials — Ahmad Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs, and Awad ibn Auf, the country’s director of military intelligence — and Khalil Ibrahim, leader of a rebel group called the Justice and Equality Movement.

Why only Khalil Ibrahim? What makes him different from other rebel leaders? Maybe this ought to explain it.

1-

Turabi often referred to Osama bin Laden as a hero. More recently, the United Nations and human rights experts have accused Turabi of backing one of Darfur’s key rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement, in which some of his top former students are leaders.

2-

Dr Khalil Ibrahim, a protege of Islamist hardliner Dr Hasan al-Turabi. Formed in November 2002, JEM is increasingly recognised as being part and parcel of Dr Turabi’s Popular Congress.

So the one with ties to Turabi got targeted and those with no ties weren’t even mentioned. Is that it? Hmmmm…

Comments

3 Responses to “Rebel Leader Targeted By Sanctions: Why Him?”

  1. Roman Kalik on June 2nd, 2007 6:27 pm

    It may depend on actions in the field. If these JEM fellows aren’t known for their warm and fuzzy treatment of civilians, then that would explain a great deal.

  2. Drima on June 3rd, 2007 4:54 am

    True, but there have been reports about SLM rebels playing their part in atrocities against civilians. Why aren’t some of them included?

    If only we had a peak at what was going on behind closed doors in Washington. It would make our lives a lot more easier. :)

  3. Roman Kalik on June 3rd, 2007 11:25 am

    Heh, indeed. Your reply raises further questions in my head, by the way. How much intel does the US get on Darfur? How much of that intel counts as reliable and corroborated intel?

    I suspect that getting *specific* reliable intel in this case is more difficult than general intel. And I further theorize that supporting Bin-Laden would count as corroborative evidence for Washington, if not enough evidence in itself, of this particular rebel group being a bunch of bloodthirsty bastards.

Leave a Reply