Though the role of Saudi Arabia and Israel in Bashir’s ouster seems clear, the U.S. government also appears to have been involved to some extent in the effort to end Bashir’s thirty-year-long rule. Indeed, Bashir has long been targeted by the U.S. government, as government cables published by WikiLeaks have shown.
One such cable, written in
December 2008, was titled “Plotting for Bashir Exit Intensifies.” It states, among other things, that efforts were being made within Sudan and even within Bashir’s own political party (the National Congress Party or NCP) “to broker a quick and graceful removal of President Al-Bashir within the next few months, with the President going into exile in Saudi Arabia,” though discussions of a transition “have stalled.”
The cable states that the U.S.-aligned Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) had “begun scouring the list of SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces] generals trying to see if it can identify appropriate officers who fit the bill and will share its findings with the US Embassy,” and that this search would be discussed “with President Bush in early January in Washington and, hopefully, with Obama transition staff.” It also notes that some SPLM members hoped to “see aggressive action by the
P-3 [the United States, the United Kingdom and France] over the next month to shape such a transition and ensure that Western … concerns are taken into account by the regime’s future leaders.”
---
Though the planned “quick and graceful” exit of Bashir did not materialize as planned, the Obama administration notably played
an outsized role in partitioning Sudan into Sudan and South Sudan
in 2011, a decision that resulted in Sudan’s government losing access to 80 percent of its oil resources as well as in the brutal civil war still raging within South Sudan. The partition undeniably weakened Sudan’s economy and government, the effects of which are still very much felt today.
A major motivator in the U.S.’ efforts to partition Sudan into two countries was the prospect of gaining a foothold in its oil sector, which China had come to dominate. Yet, China’s dominance in
Sudan and
South Sudan’s oil economy remains unchallenged to date.
Notably, while the U.S. has had difficulty making inroads in South Sudan’s oil sector, Israel
quickly forged ties with South Sudan’s government soon after its creation and signed a major oil deal with its government in 2013. Media reports on the deal claimed that Israel’s growing ties with South Sudan were aimed at weakening the Bashir-led government in Sudan. The same year this oil deal was signed, the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar
were accused of orchestratinga “color revolution” against Bashir that failed to secure his removal from power.
Since then, U.S. involvement in efforts targeting Bashir’s rule have been mostly covert and achieved through “soft power” organizations aimed at “democracy promotion,” such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy NED).
Notably, according to the U.S. government’s own figures,
funding of USAID’s activities in Sudan did not begin until 2011 upon the creation of South Sudan. During the failed U.S.-backed color revolution of 2013, USAID funding for activities in Sudan spiked from $93 million the year prior to $135 million. Notably, last year — as Sudan’s efforts to move away from the Saudi-led bloc became more clear — USAID’s funding of activities in Sudan reached an all-time high of nearly $197 million.
The correlation of increased funding of USAID’s activities in Sudan and increased unrest in the country are telling, given USAID’s documented track record in “
hastening the transition” of governments that Washington seeks to destabilize or overthrow and,
according to author William Blum, working closely with U.S. intelligence agencies since it was founded in the 1960s. Notably,
a proposal authored last year for a branch of USAID called the Global Development Lab called for militarizing the agency and greatly increasing its coordination with both the CIA and elite branches of the U.S. military.
Similarly, the NED’s funding of “democracy promotion” activities in Sudan
were substantialin 2018, with NED spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on programs aimed at “empowering youth and women leaders;” creating “a nationwide network of communities and civil society organizations to raise awareness of and counter-corruption in Sudan;” establishing “a nationwide network of politically and socially active youth to engage in key national issues;” and conducting “youth trainings on policy development and leadership for selected individuals from Sudan’s 18 states.”
Though the NED is ostensibly dedicated to “promoting democracy,” it has a long history of involvement in past regime change operations and other clandestine actions once reserved for U.S. intelligence agencies. Indeed, NED’s first president, Allen Weinstein,
told the Washington Post in 1991 that “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” Since its founding, NED
has been involvedin numerous regime-change coups, the manufacture of “citizen uprisings,” foreign election meddling, and public relations campaigns aimed at maligning governments targeted by Washington and promoting groups that Washington would like to see gain power. Notably, a NED-funded organization was responsible
for training the U.S. coup leader in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó.
This track record makes NED’s very active role in promoting “youth and women leaders” and creating “nationwide networks” very troubling in relation to last week’s events. This is particularly true in light of the outsized role that students and women played in the protests that ultimately ousted Bashir from power. Were these students, including iconic protester Alaa Salah, participants in NED-funded programs in Sudan? The answer to that question remains unknown. However, the U.S. along with its allies in Saudi Arabia and Israel, had not only the means but the motive to oust Bashir.
As in past foreign-backed “revolutions,” coming events in Sudan are likely to reveal how people-driven recent protests in Sudan really were. A real, people-driven movement will likely be
unwilling to quietly accept a military dictatorship like that installed in Egypt in the Israel-backed coup of 2013 and like that currently in control of Sudan’s government.
Regardless of what comes next for Sudan, last week’s events appear to be yet another example of foreign governments manipulating
real dissent against an authoritarian government in order to install yet another authoritarian government more friendly to their interests but to the detriment of the people.
:weebeyanime: in terms of how foreign investment works in Africa (jump to 6:07)
