#And despite expectations… *#Abdul Moaz Hussein Al-Mukabrabi* *#Euro-American_Sanctions on Sudan (The Psychopathy of Strategic Conflict)..!?*

Those who see the world through the lens of romance, beauty, and emotions — we tell them the bitter, unrevealed truths:
The system of international relations is governed by a framework of strategic interest conflicts. These are violent, dark battles not subject to humanization, romanticism, or soft approaches, given the nature and fluctuations of that international conflict.

Sudan, as a geostrategic country, possesses large and evident quantities of reserve resources from the map of strategic goods, resources, and minerals. This places it deep within the circle of strategic conflict and the greed of those states, which seek to make it one of the reserves and stockpiles for their future generations.

Within this context, hostile policies emerge under the weight of those plans dedicated against the Sudanese state by the United States of America and the European Union countries. Their method is a serial imposition of sanctions on successive Sudanese governments.
The goal is to disrupt and freeze the renaissance, to prevent benefit from the latent stockpiles and resources, and to ensure they are not utilized — so that control over the prey’s resources can be achieved in the future.

The Euro-American strategy wants Sudan to be unstable and inflamed, with no political or economic stability. This is what they translate through their foreign policies toward Sudan in dealing with various issues.

These sanctions take multiple colors and forms. They create continuous obstacles and crises for their hidden objectives.

The latest package of American sanctions imposed by the U.S. administration under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control Act includes a broad ban on the export of American goods and technologies to Sudan, restricting international aid, and freezing dealings with entities and individuals involved in supporting military capabilities.

*The specific details and measures of the punitive package include the following:*

*Trade and Technical Restrictions*:
A ban on exporting most sensitive American goods and technologies related to security, with an “assumption of denial” policy applied to any materials that could contribute to developing military and security capabilities.

*Financial Pressure*:
Washington’s commitment to oppose any loans or financial or technical assistance to Sudan through international financial institutions and development banks, except for urgent humanitarian aid and essential foodstuffs.

*Aviation Sector*:
Suspension of permits for Sudanese government airline companies to operate flights to and from the United States.

*Targeting Financing Networks*:
Separate sanctions by the U.S. Department of the Treasury targeting individuals and entities — including companies working in the energy and explosives sector — for their role in supporting parties to the conflict.

According to the U.S. Department of State, these measures will remain in effect for a minimum of one full year and will not be lifted until legal conditions are met. Details of the decisions and updates to the Federal Register can be followed via the U.S. Treasury website and the official U.S. Gazette.

The European Union also imposed sanctions on Sudanese gold exports in a step it said aims to cut off sources that feed the armed conflict and bring peace.

In wartime, Sudanese lack even the most basic necessities of services, security, and food. These malicious traditional measures may worsen. The sanctions package targeting the gold sector will have a direct impact because the private sector controls eighty percent of mining activities. This will directly reflect on citizens, increase their suffering, and cause them to lose their jobs and sources of livelihood after these sanctions are implemented.

The Europeans and their successors, the Americans, in colonialism, see Sudan only as a state that poses a threat to their colonial culture if left unchecked. They read history.

On the other hand, they see Sudan’s land, location, and stockpiles of its resources as a reserve — a storehouse they will inevitably resort to when their own reserves run out one day. Therefore, they want to keep it untouched — its land, resources, and stockpiles unviolated — for a day of need they see approaching with the wheel of time turning.

Hence, their strategy toward Sudan is to bridle and cripple it by several means, including:
The deliberate, diligent, and persistent work to divide Sudan. For this, they issued the Closed Districts Ordinance of 1924. They erected cultural barriers based on incitement and hatred between more than one component of the Sudanese people, and took this as a seed to develop that cultural separation and expand it systematically until, by the mid-1980s, it reached more than three-quarters of Sudan. Between 1973 and 2005 this led to establishing constitutional bases for its division into two states, while laying the groundwork for three other future divisions.

When the colonizers found that sowing ethnic cultural differences and hatred alone was not enough to make the seed of division bear fruit, they reinforced it by obstructing all opportunities for economic growth. They began by obstructing investment in oil discovered commercially since the first half of the 1970s. Then they obstructed every investment partnership project between Sudan and the rest of the world. There is no room here to list all those obstructed projects or the methods of obstruction.

They used cultural differences, ethnic diversity, and the halt of economic development and its expansion to deepen hatred between the state’s administrative center and components labeled “the periphery,” to ignite wars between the center and the manufactured peripheries. Thus, they paralyzed everything. They have even become greedy not only for the division leading to Sudan’s partition, but for the annihilation of its people — some through fighting, others through displacement and seeking refuge outside their land. This is the current situation.

My intention with the above is that America and Western Europe have old, entrenched, and consistent policies and strategies toward Sudan, ongoing for more than a century. They cannot be compared or equated with America and Europe’s relationship with other regions of the world, which are linked only by temporary interests that change with changing circumstances and conditions.