Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Video Excerpt coming soon...

February 12, 2009 (LPAC)-- When asked by diplomats in his Feb. 11 Internet webcast about "reports that the Obama Administration will support an anticipated call by the International Criminal Court for the arrest of General Bashir, the President of Sudan, charging him with the crime of genocide against the people of Darfur, Lyndon LaRouche responded with an outline of the real interest of the United States in Sudan's role in African progress and development. That interest does not lie in British provocations like this indictment, LaRouche said:      

"General Bashir was brought into the position of President of Sudan in the early 1990s. What had happened is that the previous shakeup in the government of Sudan had involved the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially a British intelligence operation, or British intelligence-controlled operation, from the top down. And what had happened in this process is that people who had been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, broke with the Muslim Brotherhood, and became Sudan nationalists. In the process, they had a compromise President selected: General Bashir. In this process, so you have a complication of elements around there, which are all British intelligence-operated.      

"The last time I was in Sudan, I saw a bevy of this stuff: British intelligence all over the place--and I know how to smell British intelligence. It's like knowing skunks, and they're all over the place. And the government was being disoriented. In part, it was old Muslim Brotherhood channels, from Egypt and other things, and operations by other countries. And they took this one area, which is a very poor area of Sudan, on the border with Chad, in this area. And they ran an operation there, with outside forces coming in, and just stirring things up. So it was an operation, of the typical type that's run by intelligence services there.      

"There is no genocide, by the government of Sudan. However, what you have, including members of the current administration in Washington, have been brainwashed by this thing about "genocide, genocide, genocide," and they've become so disoriented by this propaganda that they no longer have a grasp on reality. The people that you listed in your question, these types of people, are people who understand this problem, more or less. Some understand the problem in its totality, other people understand that you don't do that in this area. There are too many cases--and this is typical of British intelligence! It's a British intelligence operation! And I fear, that there are people in the administration, even who are friends of mine in this administration, who will be foolish enough to buy into this heavy propaganda about "genocide, genocide, genocide" against the government of Sudan.      

"Yes, there are problems there. There's killing, but this is the result of outside operations in the area, combined with poverty, and combined with an economic problem of the government of Sudan as a whole, where it does not have the capability of maintaining adequate security in its own country, against these kinds of outside operations.      

"So, it's an orchestrated operation.      

"Now, to understand this historically, people should shut their mouths until they go back to 1898, and go back to the time of where Lord Kitchener took over Sudan. And Lord Kitchener took--there are groups of peoples who are actually refugees, they're not tribes; they were refugees who fled across the borders, from neighboring borders into the southern swamp area of Sudan. And this has been a problem in that area. So they took this and they played this thing. But it has always been British intelligence.      

"The Muslim Brotherhood problem: For example--well, I won't bother about that. I can tell you a story or two about George H.W. Bush and his trip to Sudan, where he slept in what became the Foreign Ministry, and he did something.             

- Our Interest Is Sudan Feeding Africa -      

"But no, the point is, there have been operations to destabilize Sudan, as a part of the policy which was introduced to Africa, with U.S. approval by Henry Kissinger and others, in the middle of the 1970s, which says that the African territory belongs to U.S. and British interests. And that the people of Africa are too numerous, and the population has to be reduced, and we have to take over their raw materials and resources. The biggest resource here, in Sudan--just for people who need the intelligence, and we do have some specialists in the United States, State Department specialists, who do have the intelligence, know it: Sudan is the largest-territory nation in Africa. It is--apart from the south, which is a water-rich area, and jungle-type area largely--it is the largest grain-growing area of Africa. When the water is there, the grain is grown. With sufficient water supplies, Sudan could practically feed all of Africa, at least with grain requirements. The problem has been the lack of agreement on promoting the improvement in water-management problems in that part of East Africa, down into what was called Lake Victoria and below.      

"So that area of East Africa is crucial.      

"The destabilization of that area, the lack of development which could be easily--I mean, you don't have to provide that much! All you have to do, is increase the guaranteed water supply in the Sudan area, each year, so that you have a grain crop each year, and you can begin to feed the population of Africa with that product. It's that good. And everything is done, in policy is done, to prevent that from being done! I've been into Sudan a number of times, always on this water question. You look at the facts of the area: With water management, which is quite feasible, it's not that expensive in terms of benefit ratio, we could feed a great deal of Africa with the grain which could be grown in the territory of Sudan.      

"Now, that should be the U.S. policy interest in Sudan! We need positive policy interests in these countries! We have to go in with a positive policy, not with who're we gonna shoot. But a positive policy of development: We have make friends with countries on the basis of positive development, the way the United States used to do it. Like the U.S. officers who helped to rebuild the Egyptian system. There were U.S. officers, veterans of the Civil War, who went over to Egypt and helped them develop their system there--and then the British got them kicked out, later.      

"But, our interest in Africa, our interest in parts of the world is, not just to "make friends"--that's a kind of a sloppy term. Our function as the United States, as we are a republic, our interest in the world is not to have any empires. We hate empires. We hate the British Empire, not only because of the crimes it commits and still commits, but because we don't like empires. We believe in nation-states, we believe in representative government, Constitutional government, nation-states. We believe in nation-state building! We don't believe in globalization, we believe in nation-state building; globalization is an empire. We don't believe in empires. And therefore, our policy should be consistently, to develop, wherever we have the opportunity, to assist in developing nation-state building, and dealing with problems such as food shortages, disease control, these kinds of things, practical measures. And the only time we go to war, is when we have to defend something like that. And we fight only when that's necessary, and as far as that's necessary. We don't get involved with these imperial policies of this type.      

"And I'm afraid that some of the people, because of the propaganda effort, about "genocide, genocide, genocide"--a magic word! You want genocide? George Soros is guilty of genocide! You want to make war on genocide? Make war on George Soros, make war on people like that who commit the genocide and their policies, the drug wars.      

"No, this is a dangerous situation: It would be a terrible thing, a great folly, if the Obama Administration were to be sucked into an adventure, such as an adventure against Bashir of Sudan."