My Pajamas Media Articles

The following are articles of mine originally published at Pajamas Media. I thought it would be good to put them all here together for easier access and reading. Enjoy!

Wild Parties In Sudan

In many ways, Khartoum is a city of sharp contrasts. A donkey cart, overtaken by a brand new BMW on the same road might seem like an impossible scene, but it is a real one you can actually witness. The huge economic gap between the rich and the poor is the most obvious, but there are other contrasts that exist below the surface.

Wild parties in the religious conservative city where alcohol is illegal under Islamic law happen quite frequently behind closed doors. At these parties you can expect the unexpected.

Some mansions in the middle of farms along the Nile were built by their rich owners with the sole purpose of making them easily convertible into dance clubs – they are designed with built-in sound systems wired to speakers and subwoofers in all rooms, including the bathroom. Wherever you go, the DJ’s choice of hip-hop and trance music goes with you. The alcohol flows freely. Sometimes cocaine, marijuana, heroin and ecstasy “flow” along too. Many girls arrive at the scene covered up from head to toe, except for the hands and face. Once inside, they take off their long garments to reveal the scant stylish outfits underneath them. Outside, private security stands on guard to make sure the religious police don’t come. If they do show up, they’re simply bribed away.

The economic boom fueled by the mostly Chinese-drilled oil is attracting Sudanese from overseas back to Khartoum again. All of this would have been hardly unimaginable about fifteen years ago when political oppression and the North-South civil war were at their peaks. But now, the Sudanese diaspora, slowly returning to their homeland is bringing along with it tons of money and a lifestyle foreign to Sudanese culture, hence the increasingly common wild parties.

When the National Islamic Front came to power after their coup in 1989, they had the popular support of many in Khartoum. Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, the man responsible for hosting Bin Laden in Sudan during the early nineties, was a very charismatic person back then. He was the spiritual leader of the NIF, nicknamed “The Salvation Party”. They gave the people the kind of promises they wanted to hear and al-Turabi cleverly mixed Islam with his self-serving rhetoric which made it more believable and convincing.

The change was drastic. All of a sudden, Khartoum had its own moral police. Torturers reportedly trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard silenced dissidents.

Wedding celebrations incorporating traditional Sudanese bridal dances were forced to tone down their supposedly un-Islamic aspects. Many musicians and singers were forced out of business. The NIF’s version of Islamic law was essentially shoved down everybody’s throats. Sudanese Christian Copts were greatly affected and left the country in large numbers.

By the late nineties, most people had finally woken up to the immense corruption occurring under NIF rule and realized the ugly truth.

President Omar al-Bashir made the wise decision of expelling al-Turabi out of government and put him under house arrest. What followed after that was the positively monumental Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the South and North. Thanks to Western pressure led by the United States, Sudan’s bloody civil war which killed millions finally came to a halt after two long decades.

With more time and energy to focus on constructive efforts, and with US sanctions still in place, Khartoum began looking East for opportunities to develop the vast oil fields of the country. The Chinese gladly rushed in to answer the call. Other countries, including Western ones followed suit. The result? Previously, there were no Westerners to be seen except diplomats or those working for humanitarian agencies and the UN. Back then the sight of a Chinese man roaming the streets of the Sudanese capital was like an elephant walking in Antarctica. There were hardly any Southeast Asians. When they began arriving, locals used to point at them and jokingly call them “Bruce Lee”. Now they’re a very regular daily sight in Khartoum.

The influx of foreigners and the returning Sudanese diaspora have greatly changed the face of the city. The peace agreement and economic boom had a noticeable effect too. The city is becoming more open. Upper-middle class Arab-oriented Sudanese girls are increasingly becoming more influenced by what they see on Arab music television channels, and by popular American singers like Beyonce and Alicia Keys.

In comparison with the city’s cruel political past, even the press is experiencing more freedom, albeit far from enough. Secularists and freedom-loving Muslims who believe in a liberal democracy are becoming more vocal. Islamist nuts don’t have complete reign anymore. Anti-Americanism remains alive and well, but a lot of it is just hollow. The typical Sudanese anti-American will curse the US government and mocks the country’s morals, or lack thereof, and then jump with joy at the possibility of a Green Card.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, a small and steadily growing Chinatown has taken root. Besides attending parties behind closed doors, many foreigners like to go and hang out in the restaurants of Chinatown to enjoy the “special tea”, which is basically cold beer secretly served inside a large Chinese-style tea pot.

Predictably the religious police turn a blind eye. “Uncomfortable” Chinese and Western expatriates aren’t good for the economy.

The sharp contrasts and disparities of Khartoum, rooted in its history, persist and don’t look like they’re going anywhere any time soon. The dangerous trend of focusing development in the capital at the expense of the rest of the country still sadly continues.

The oil-propelled economic boom still hasn’t even begun to benefit the average Sudanese, as the elite is enjoying it immensely. Corruption remains a major problem. The religious police continue to harass people from time to time even as the wild parties persist behind closed doors. The implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement isn’t going smoothly. Democratization efforts are facing stiff challenges.

And while all of this happens, far away from the city, Darfur still suffers, but hardly anything registers in the collective psyche of most of Khartoum’s residents. They have too many worries and distractions of their own.

Sudan’s Deadly New Crisis

Even before Darfur begins to witness calm and peace, another potentially deadly crisis has popped up in the Sudan.

In the biggest escalation of tension with al-Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party (NCP), the Southern Sudanese People Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM) withdrew from the Government of National Unity. The risk of going back to full scale war – only deadlier this time – looms over Sudan’s head and is very worrying: the country may end up literally being torn into pieces.

Unlike the period before the peace agreement, the SPLM now has many organized and well-trained personnel living in the outskirts of Khartoum and even right within it. Furthermore, the SPLM has allies amongst Darfurian rebels in the west and Nubian rebels far up north.

Some might think this talk of a crisis is alarmist. It’s not. The NCP and SPLM might publicly say they’re not going to return to war, but what they whisper among themselves is different. Both sides are being very cautious towards one another and a real tension exists. Worse still, it’s increasing fast. One bullet shot at the wrong place and wrong time could snowball into something very deadly.

The situation is becoming more complex. Darfur, Nubia, up in the far north and the derailed implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Al-Bashir’s NCP and the Southern SPLM must not be regarded as three separate issues requiring different solutions. The root problems are essentially the same in all cases – lack of wealth and power sharing.

While the Bush administration has committed mistakes and blunders in Iraq, its monumental foreign policy achievement has got to be none other than the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended our bloody two decade-long civil war between the South and North – a war that killed millions.

Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan must not distract the administration from monitoring unfolding events in Sudan. Continuated focus is needed and it is highly important to bring this new crisis under control before the peace collapses.

The possible consequences of a collapse are enormous. The NCP dominated Khartoum government will doubtless fight fiercely for its survival against the SPLM in the south, Darfurians in the west, Nubians far up north and possibly frustrated tribes in the east with whom a wobbly peace deal has been made. For the first time Khartoum itself may very well also become a battleground resembling combat like Baghdad.

Countless people could become refugees. There is a huge risk of violence spilling over into neighboring countries. Last but certainly not least, al-Qaeda elements may take advantage of the situation and begin wreaking serious havoc.

Whatever is left of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement must be salvaged or else what’s next will very possibly be truly horrendous.

The Teddy Bear that Embarrassed Sudan

I’ve been deeply upset ever since this teddy bear circus erupted. A few days ago, I was out with a bunch of friends trying my best to get my face unglued from my computer screen. As we were walking in laughter, we passed by a shop displaying a set of teddy bears, and for the first time the triggered emotion was a starkly different one.

If anything, the whole spectacle further proves something to me as a Sudanese Muslim: our false pride and misplaced sense of honor.

Those we watched angrily protesting love to highlight the supposed immorality of the West – the bars, bare women and “corrupting” freedoms. We pride ourselves on living in a country that is supposedly more moral and therefore automatically better. It’s a false pride, one propagated and encouraged by the propaganda of Sudanese Islamists.

Certainly we have a lot to be proud of as a people with a rich history and culture. The Nubian Civilization, hailed by many experts as one of the greatest that ever existed, is but only one aspect of that. True Sudanese values of generosity and hospitality – ones slowly but surely withering away as oppression tears us – are trademarks we’re well known for. There is, however, nothing for us to be proud of as citizens of a country ruled by a gang of morally bankrupt butchers.

We are a country earning billions of dollars in oil exports, yet we rely on Western aid so millions of our own can survive when we can clearly afford to support them! Where’s the pride in that?

The day when basic human rights start to be respected is a day I might actually have some pride in being a Sudanese citizen. I guess it isn’t enough of an accomplishment for some in my country that we hosted one of the most beloved people in recent times – Osama Bin Laden. You may praise and thank the Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi for that.

It’s al-Turabi, after his rise to power, who is mainly responsible for the spread and exponential growth of radicalism in Sudan. Thanks to him, it also looks like our sense of honor has been greatly misplaced.

It amazes me how some of us can get so upset over a teddy bear whose name was democratically chosen by a bunch of seven-year-olds but feel no anger at the mass atrocities which took place in Darfur over the last four years. Honoring the countless Darfurian lives lost apparently isn’t important.

Brainwashed by self-interested religious clerics into believing that Ms Gibbons’ act was in fact part of a bigger Western plot against Islam, thousands of angry protesters marched the streets of Khartoum apparently to protect the honor of the Prophet. Where were they all this time when Darfur was burning? Where were they when Mohammed Atta flew into the World Trade Center? No, wait, sorry. That particular Mohammed was not a teddy bear.

200,000 dead, no problem. A teddy bear gets named Muhammad, all hell breaks loose.

The teddy bear extravaganza also succeeded in making Islam look utterly ridiculous again. Let us not forget though that Islam is as monolithic as we Muslims ourselves are – hardly at all. Many Muslims rely on reason and their own conscience rather than blindly following religious clerics.

The lunatics we saw protesting – and those who mobilized them – are a symptom of a dangerous global cancer. It must be staunchly challenged. If it isn’t, episodes like this one will become increasingly common not just in Sudan, but everywhere else in the world.

As a Sudanese, I am embarrassed by what took place over the previous few days. The majority of Sudanese are. I’d like to offer a heartfelt apology to Ms Gibbons and her family for the ugly ordeal she was put through. I’m glad she’s reunited with her loved ones, and I wish her nothing but the best of luck.

As for me, an ugly association has forever been ingrained into my mind. A teddy bear shall make me smile no more.

If Sudanese Could Vote in the US Elections, Who Would They Vote For?

I find it amusing and ironic that I’ve been following this year’s race for the White House much more closely than most of my American friends. Many are politically apathetic, and a few — including a U.S. Marine — don’t even plan to vote. While I am neither American nor living in the United States, the results of the elections hold great importance for me. And why shouldn’t they?

The global impact of U.S. foreign policy is undeniably significant. It can and does send rippling tremors throughout the world, good ones and bad, especially towards the regions I come from — the Middle East and North Africa. The things that specifically interest me are:

1. foreign policy towards Sudan
2. genuine promotion of democracy
3. future plans for the two current American-led wars
4. net neutrality (the open tradition and architecture of the internet)

Health care doesn’t. Sincerity and well-thought-out strategies on the above four issues are what I desire and primarily look for in the offerings of the three current presidential candidates.

As a Sudanese, I have witnessed firsthand what American foreign policy under both Republicans and Democrats can do to a country like Sudan. It can inflict pain or alleviate it. Bill Clinton’s did the former. He bombed a pharmaceuticals factory which produced a large chunk of the country’s medical supplies, alleging that it manufactured chemical weapons when it didn’t. He enforced sanctions that did little to affect the regime and instead ended up making life for the average Sudanese more miserable. He could have also had bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter — and possibly prevented 9/11 — but he ignored the opportunity when it was offered to him by Khartoum.

As the north-south civil war raged, the Democrat administration fanned the flames and poured more fuel on an already horrendous inferno by financially and militarily backing the SPLA against Khartoum. While I am happy that my fellow countrymen in the south found the means to defend themselves and fight for their freedom, I wasn’t exactly cheerful over Clinton’s strategy. All it did was prolong the war. Friends and family continued perishing and the enormous suffering of the southern Sudanese persisted with no end in sight. Little did we know then that the peace we hopelessly dreamed of was just around the corner.

Then George W. Bush, a Republican, was elected as the new president of the United States. Unlike Clinton, the Bush administration dedicated a great deal of time and resources into pressuring Sudan to end the longest war of the past century, and it succeeded. A few years of relentless diplomacy behind the scenes finally led up to the monumental signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005. At last, the blood of countless innocent Sudanese stopped spilling. Our long war, one which killed millions, finally came to a grand halt, and it all wouldn’t have been possible without the immense pressure exerted by the Bush administration.

Conditions in Khartoum aren’t anywhere near rosy, but the improvements we’re enjoying today are significant. While the implementation of all aspects of the CPA and Sudan’s democratic transition aren’t going smoothly, the smell of freedom is distinctly clear compared to a few years ago. Christians this year celebrated Easter openly in a way difficult to imagine during al-Turabi’s early days in power. The CPA was undoubtedly Bush’s most noble foreign policy achievement and I am grateful for it, but unfortunately — yes, it’s time for the dreaded “but” — it was offset by the great blunders his administration made elsewhere in the overall War on Terror.

I’ve been a supporter of the war in Afghanistan from the start since I believe it to be necessary. I would absolutely love to see a magnificent end to al-Qaeda and their monstrous butchery. Unfortunately, things didn’t turn out as planned by the Bush administration. Al-Qaeda lives on and so does the Taliban. Promises made to reconstruct Afghanistan were broken. While I am still supportive of the mission, I am disheartened by the failures but not nearly as much as by the catastrophes of the other war I didn’t support — the looting, the collapse of basic security, Abu Ghraib, and the list goes on. No WMDs were found and all of a sudden the rhetoric became about installing democracy in Iraq, something I initially found laughable and viewed very suspiciously, given the contradictory fact that the United States supported people like Mubarak and the House of al-Saud. The final straw was the appalling CIA-led outsourcing of torture to the very countries America accuses of human rights abuses.

My feelings towards the Bush administration were conflicted. They still are but to a lesser extent. On one hand I heartily appreciated what it did for Sudan and on the other, detested the blunders it committed in Iraq. The suffering that the mismanagement of the war brought to Iraqis was horrible but it never came close to the viciousness of al-Qaeda and Muqatada’s followers in what ensued. Hence, my anger eventually shifted towards the terrorists and Iran.

The situation changed drastically and I no longer viewed the war through a simplistic lens. It was pointless opposing something that already happened anyway. The invasion wasn’t going to undo itself. If the United States withdrew back then, a bloody civil war and possibly even genocide would have engulfed Iraq. More importantly, if a withdrawal occurs too quickly today, havoc will certainly follow. Regarding the American support for the Mubarak and Saudi regimes, the truth is that the democratically chosen alternative would be worse. Promoting democracy in the absence of liberalism can be a recipe for disaster, as demonstrated by Hamas’ election in Palestine. As for oil being the reason behind this war, economically it’s unfeasible. The war’s cost has already surpassed half a trillion dollars. This number doesn’t even take into account the negative economic effect of rising oil prices largely brought about by the very war which is supposedly for “oil.” On top of that, comparing the situation only to Vietnam’s decades ago is selective memory. Too many easily forget Japan and South Korea. Moreover, Michael J. Totten’s trustworthy blog and my conversations with numerous Iraqis — including PJM’s editor, Mohammad of ITM, whom I had the pleasure of meeting last year at a conference in Washington, DC — gave me a much better idea of what was happening in Iraq than the mainstream media ever could.

Through all the drama, one appealing Republican always stood out with his unique and independent stances — John McCain, an early staunch proponent for the “Surge.” I admired him and supported him as the best Republican presidential candidate for a number of reasons, including his “dinosaur” experience. One strong reason evaporated recently and I am left feeling extremely disappointed. After all his staunch objections to using torture, and after all the stories of how he himself endured it in Vietnam, he voted against the waterboarding ban! I was shocked by McCain’s betrayal of his own self-professed principles. Still, in spite of his decision, I’d prefer picking him over Hillary, whose tactics, constantly shifting contradictory rhetoric, and association with Bill Clinton completely turn me off. This brings me to the remaining contender for the White House — Barack Obama.

I like Obama. He’s an inspirational orator. The mere fact that he has come this far is a powerful testament to his political talent, America’s new positive reality, and the hope of which he speaks. In a time of great cynicism, he managed to uplift the spirits of the disillusioned. Some Republicans, like Susan Eisenhower, agree. Republicans for Obama feel the same way too. Even McCain himself praised Obama for attracting young voters. Some of Obama’s stances — and what sometimes comes across as fluff and naïve idealism — are what worried me, though. Luckily, I found significant substance in this interview he did with the Washington Post on his plans for the new direction of American foreign policy. The following stood out:

We benefit from the expansion of democracy: Democracies are our best trading partners, our most valuable allies, and the nations with which we share our deepest values.

Our greatest tool in advancing democracy is our own example.

I don’t think it’s the greatest tool but it’s definitely a prime one. America needs to stay true to the spirit of what it preaches.

Regarding Afghanistan, I am encouraged by Obama’s calls for a refocus on the mission there:

I will deploy at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. …

I would increase our nonmilitary aid by $1 billion to fund projects at the local level that impact ordinary Afghans — including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And I will put tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increase international support for the rule of law across the country.

In Pakistan, I will reject the false choice between stability and democracy. In our unconditional support for [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf, we have gotten neither.

This is good stuff.

Obama’s position on Iraq remains slightly vague but I strongly suspect he won’t fulfill his promise for a quick withdrawal. As far as I know, no high-ranking U.S. military commander in Iraq advocates the kind of withdrawal Obama’s been advertising. I believe he’s simply saying what his audience wants to hear. Samantha Power, who recently departed from the Obama campaign, strongly indicated that too.

Obama’s race speech is another thing I found lacking. The speech itself was a great one, but in terms of constituting a response to Wright, it wasn’t. Obama strongly criticized and distanced himself from the pastor’s remarks but not the man himself. Also, given that it’s the Democrats who’ve been calling for a withdrawal from Iraq and a forced military intervention in Darfur, I’m not exactly ready to comfortably embrace Obama just yet. Darfur needs a political solution. Going back to Clinton’s approach is the last thing Sudan needs. Bush’s is better although it lacks sufficient pressure now because al-Bashir’s regime is heavily cooperating with the CIA again in sharing highly valuable terrorism-related intelligence. Moreover, last year the CIA convened in Khartoum at a conference attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.

Tough choices, though choices.

Democrats I’m afraid are too hostile towards Sudan. Meanwhile, Republicans are easing pressure over Darfur and the CPA’s implementation in return for valuable intelligence. Neither is good but the former is the lesser of two evils. I believe the hostility will inevitably soften once reality kicks in to a level that isn’t potentially dangerous, but yet sufficient in terms of the positive pressure it produces. Regarding genuine democracy promotion, I feel Obama will handle the task better even if I fear he won’t be tough enough. Stabilizing Iraq and withdrawing responsibly is a job I trust McCain with more than Obama. As for Afghanistan, Obama’s plans are better than McCain’s, and so are those for net neutrality and the internet.

My ideal candidate would be the best of an Obama-McCain combination. Nevertheless, reality dictates otherwise. Words are fine but staying true to them is more important and I find Obama more consistent than McCain. Thus my leanings — while not final — are Barack Obama, John McCain, and nine yards away, Hillary Clinton.

Sudan Not Afraid of the ICC

According to the Washington Post, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is now seeking an arrest warrant for the Sudanese dictator, Omar al-Bashir, charging him with crimes against humanity for his role in the mass killings that engulfed Darfur during the last five years.

The move in itself, and the symbolic pursuit of morality and justice it represents, are commendable. Any research and evidence that can shed more light on the butchery that took place in Sudan’s western region is more than welcome.

Nevertheless, once all the warm and fuzzy feelings vanish, we are left with the reality and the negative consequences that such moves can cause.

First of all, what on earth does the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, plan to do after he gets his warrant? Walk into Khartoum and handcuff the Sudanese president? Let’s get real. If people in such influential positions are going to make such inflammatory rhetoric, then they better have the ability to act upon it. Otherwise they should avoid making such empty threats in the first place, because such foolishness can carry a high price.

The very lives of Darfur’s innocent women and children could face increasing danger as a result of this warrant. Khartoum will very likely react aggressively, by stubbornly stirring up more trouble than already exists. This is already being foreshadowed by the UN’s very recent security tightening in Sudan.

Al-Bashir is currently scrambling after the Arab League to hold a meeting of foreign ministers in order to discuss the ICC matter. However, this panicky attitude shouldn’t be mistaken as a positive development, because the goal of the effort isn’t to annoy Sudan’s president or force him into a corner. The final goal is peace and security for Darfur’s people — and pursuing a well-meaning but ultimately unhelpful strategy won’t achieve that.

The ICC — which got the green light to conduct its Darfur investigations from the UN Security Council — can’t do much on its own in terms of enforcement. It needs the support of the UN, but the UN has mainly been the source of disappointment after disappointment. Its clumsiness in this context is self-explanatory. All one needs to do is look at the UN’s history in the matter.

What is ironic is that the UN insists on deploying all peacekeepers and pushing the peace process forward, yet at the same time it is coordinating badly with the ICC initiative, which in turn will only hurt the UN’s peace agenda for Darfur.

On top of that, the UN is also notorious for not having the will to confront what needs confronting. The so-called “international community’s” and UN’s reactions to al-Bashir’s possible coming damaging reactionary maneuvers are all too predicable and they’ll be anything but tough or sufficient.

The United States is currently in a position to push the peace process harder, but it isn’t doing so anymore. Why? The little-publicized reason is the anti-terrorism cooperation between Khartoum’s Intelligence (Mukhabarat) and the CIA. Sudan’s intelligence has spies planted in Somalia and Iraq collecting valuable information. Only a year ago the CIA convened a conference in Khartoum attended by more than 50 African intelligence agencies.

To a certain extent this is all understandable, but America needs to balance its national security interests with the importance of human rights.

The Bush administration helped us Sudanese end our 20-year civil war between north and south because it dedicated significant resources to doing so. It can do the same for Darfur with adequate attention and the right approach.

The Olympics, by the way, is not necessarily the venue for action regarding Darfur. Really, if Bush is to be condemned for attending the Beijing Olympics as some believe, don’t we all deserve condemnation for purchasing goods with cute, little labels on them saying “Made in China?”

Choosing to boycott the Olympics or deciding to pressure the sponsors might send a strong message and make us feel good about ourselves, but it would produce nothing substantial at this point — just like the ICC warrants. The pursuit of justice at the expense of peace and highly critical political stability is imprudent.

To clarify my position, I must emphasize that the ICC’s indictment of other lower-ranking individuals involved in Darfur’s mass killings is something that should be fully supported as it is both moral and pragmatic, but indicting the head of state himself is unwise and even reckless. Where is the pragmatism? Where is the concern for possible negative repercussions?

If the ICC effort could truly deliver positive results, it would be wonderful, but I strongly suspect the bad will outweigh the good.

The ICC will just make itself look more and more like what the UN already is — a fangless, paper tiger.