Editor’s Note: This interview of Fatthi El-Fadl of the Sudanese Communist Party was conducted by Pamela Saffer for Political Affairs during the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties in Athens, Greece in early October 2004.

PA: Can you give background on the crisis in the Sudan?

FE: In general the Sudan is a problematic country. Gradually, since the year 2000, there were serious attempts to stop the civil war in the south and to tackle the problems in the different parts of the Sudan under the auspices of the United States and its friends. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Sudan government have been conducting talks for quite some time in Nairobi, Kenya to settle the issues related to the civil war in the Sudan. And at the beginning of 2004 they signed what they called the Naivasha Accords, which stopped the civil war and we think created the basis for a possible democratic development in the country.
The main issue in the Sudan is the uneven development between the center and the different regions of the Sudan, especially since the overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1989 and the imposition of the dictatorial regime by the National Islamic Front whereby they tried to enforce a model of development contrary to the interests and aspirations of the people of the Sudan. One example is their acceptance without any objections of the structural adjustments of the International Monetary Fund. You would be surprised that the Sudan government is being commended as a model government on the recommendation by the IMF despite all of their utterances of anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. It is the most capitalist government that ever passed in the Sudan. Practically, they have privatized all of the public sector in the Sudan. We don’t have any public sector anywhere in the country.

However, because of the internal problems and marginalization of the regions, Darfur region in particular because it is farther from the center, they were more devastated by the policies of the government. In addition to that there were natural calamities of both drought and famine, which created difficulties for the inhabitants there without any help from the government. So the lack of democracy, the imposition of dictatorial rule, plus natural calamities have created an unbearable situation for the people of Darfur.

PA: Could you describe some aspects of that situation?

FE: In Darfur, we have two types of tribes living in that area. One is a nomadic group, which has cattle raising as their profession and moves from south to north Darfur depending on the season looking for grazing land for their cattle. The other group is made up of settlers and farmers and lives mainly in the central and southern parts of Darfur. For centuries these tribes have been living in harmony. Whenever the nomadic tribes needed land they were hosted by the settlers.

But in recent years with the imposition of the dictatorial measures of the government, groups found in the nomadic Arab tribes more support for and acceptance of their rule than the settlers. The nomadic tribes became more aggressive enjoying the support of the government.

The second element is the drought. This made the need of the nomadic tribes more acute. At the same time made the cultivated land more valuable and more wanted by the settlers. So a clash of interests started. And the government sided with the Arab tribes, for two reasons: one, because of being Arab, which is racist at its root, and two, because the African tribes were generally opposing the rule of the National Islamic Front. So when the clashes started, it started like a normal clash on land, but soon it was politicized by the government, which raised the issue of jihad by Arabs against the Africans.

This continued for sometime and the heads of the tribes tried to solve the problems in a peaceful manner by providing land to the nomadic tribes. When the government felt there was a possibility of peace, especially with the opposition forces, in the area, they started importing Arab tribes from neighboring countries, especially Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali. This accelerated the military confrontation between the two groups, and foreigners are now playing a major part with these bandits, which are called the Janjaweed. And this is how a normal clash of two groups over land developed into a kind of ethnic cleansing and even genocide in the area.

PA: What do you see as the atmosphere in which a resolution can be made?

FE: The first step to stopping the conflict is to reach an agreement between the two fighting forces, especially the government and the National Liberation Movement of Darfur and to force the government of the Sudan to disarm the bandits, because these are the actual forms which are used by the government in the conflict in Darfur. The second step would be to try to organize a conference for the different tribes of Darfur to discuss the issues of development in the country under international supervision or in African-controlled regions.

Here it is important to mention the role that can be played by the African Union. The African Union has already sent troops to the Sudan, while demanding more troops to be sent to the Sudan. We are glad to know that the Sudanese government has agreed to the increasing number of African Union troops. Over here we very much would like to see the African troops shoulder more responsibilities, not only to observe the cease-fire, but to be more involved in the protection of the refugee camps. Because what the government is doing right now is including the Janjaweed into the security forces and putting this security forces inside the refugee camps. That is, so to speak, they’re putting the wolf with the sheep. So atrocities are still continuing in the camps. That’s why we feel that the African Union should play a major role in that.

The third very important issue is to give the people of the Darfur the right to their autonomy. I think these three steps will help pacify the situation.

The other issue is the issue of development in the area. This should be discussed within the context of the whole development of the Sudan and that’s why the National Liberation Movement in Darfur is now coming faster and faster. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) of the country, which is involved in the negotiations about the future of the Sudan, demanding the annulment of all emergency laws, the introduction of a new Constitution, to legalize the existence of parties, mass organizations, the right to organize, the right to move – in a nutshell, to curtail the excessive powers of the National Islamic Front and to create a new alternative, a new democratic Sudan.

PA: Can you explain the characteristics of the National Liberation Movement, the NDA and the Sudanese government and the role they play?

FE: The NDA is an umbrella group of all the opposition parties fighting against the rule of the National Islamic Front. It is composed of the Communists, the Umma Party, Democratic Unionist Party, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, and all the mass democratic organizations. It more or less represents the people of the Sudan.

The National Liberation Movement of Darfur is a front group in the resistance of the Darfurian people. The different individuals from the different tribes from Darfur who raise arms are the members of the National Liberation Movement of Darfur. This front two months ago [August 2004] became a member of the National Democratic Alliance fighting against the government.

The Government of the Sudan is composed mainly of the Muslim Brotherhood and their party, which is the National Islamic Front.

PA: What is the government’s role?

FE: The government was trying to impose what they call an Islamic way of development. They had what they called their own project for the Sudan, which negates the existence of anybody else. Accordingly, Sudan was subject in the past 14 years to unbelievable suppression of its people. A lot of people lost their lives in the civil war or as a result of it through displacement, suppression and mass killings. The Sudan government is also an obedient student of the IMF. Apparently it has all of the patterns of being anti-American, but in practice, Sudan is open to international capital and the country’s resources are being sucked by multinational corporations. So it is no different from any capitalist country.

Like the American government, Sudan was helping Bin Laden. Actually Bin Laden was living in the Sudan for some time. The paradox is that the government handed Carlos the Jackal over to France. They were trying to hand over Bin Laden to the Americans during the Clinton administration, and the Americans refused. The Sudanese government wanted to hand him over to the Saudi Arabians, and they refused. So he was free to go back to Afghanistan.

So what I’m trying to say is that the Sudanese government is a servant and a practitioner of capitalism. At the same time, the Sudanese interests coincide with the American interests in that they don’t want radical change in the Sudan. That means they don’t want a democratic Sudan. Sudan as you know is surrounded by eight African countries. It is the largest country in Africa. Its influence, in the event that it had a democratic regime, would be unbelievable. It would change the whole geopolitical situation in Africa and that of the Arab world. That’s why I doubt very much that the US with all of its so-called principles and democracy and human rights would like to see the disappearance of the National Islamic Front regime in the Sudan.

PA: How does the Sudanese Communist Party see the role of the US government in the Sudan?

FE: The US government would like to see a regime that says yes to everything the Americans want. No democratic regime anywhere in the world would agree to that, especially if it is Sudanese. The second thing, fortunately or unfortunately, we have the catch of having oil in the country. That’s why a lot of foreign powers that were never interested in Sudan suddenly became interested in the development of the country.

As you know, Sudan previously had two military regimes. We managed to peacefully topple the two military regimes without foreign intervention. But this is the first time that other forces have claimed that they have to restore democracy to the Sudan. In actual terms, it is creating difficulties for us to restore democracy. Without the intervention of the US government in the Sudan, the issue would have been settled a long time ago.

The Americans, on the one hand, tried to insist to the government and the SPLA that the dialogue should be limited to the two parties and not to allow the NDA to be involved in the negotiations. And they succeeded in doing so. This resulted in the partial agreement between two parties, which to a great extent gave the Muslim Brotherhood regime another six years to be a part of the government of the Sudan. Otherwise, without the American intervention, I’m dead sure the number of years of the present regime would not be more than one year.

So in a way, the US administration is interested in establishing a friendly regime rather than a real democratic country. This is the same approach they have towards other Arab countries, be it Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, even Iraq. The main interest of the US is not a democratic Iraq, but an Iraqi regime that is subordinated to the interests of the US. It is much better to have a regime that has little respect for human rights than it is to have an independent democratic country.

Allawi for example is a very known CIA agent; he is very well known as MI-6. He is very well know as a former Ba’athist. He is a very well known person who was involved in killing a lot of Communists. That is why today Allawi is the Prime Minister of Iraq. Most people in Iraq, including the Iraqi Communist Party, are struggling for a secular democratic country. This is something that is neither proposed by Allawi nor by the Islamic resistance.

The same thing applies to a number of other countries including Egypt, the Sudan and to other Arab countries as well. The alternative that the people want does not fall within the American project.

PA: Can you explain SCP’s position on intervention?

FE: As a principle we oppose any interference or intervention into the internal affairs of any sovereign state. Under no circumstance and under no pretext do we accept intervention into the affairs of sovereign states, and we uphold all of the principles of the United Nations charter. This is applicable to the Sudan as well as any other nation. However, the situation in the Sudan developed in a way whereby there is a real threat of US or NATO intervention making use of the tragedy in Darfur. We think that African Union intervention would help at least to avoid the major catastrophe in the Sudan of the presence of the Americans or any NATO forces. At least it is possible within the African Union to have a discussion and to have a partner that would listen to the plight of the Sudanese people. The opposition forces in the Sudan can at least have a say and have a listening partner in the African Union. That’s why we are more for the presence of African Union forces in the Sudan.

PA: What is the significance of the situation in Darfur for neighboring countries?

EF: The main characteristic is that we managed through the Naivasha agreement to halt the civil war in the south. Now we are seeing the beginning of another civil war. It is becoming more dangerous. It can spill out to neighboring countries especially Chad. Since the majority of the tribes in that part of Africa move in and out and live jointly in the Sudan and Chad, the possibility is, especially now with the government’s attempts to import tribes from other countries, the civil war can also be transferred into Western Africa. This is a real danger.

The second thing that is important to stress here is that the government of the Sudan stated that it was willing to negotiate only with people who raise up arms. This is maybe one of the reasons that the people in Darfur resorted to armed struggle. It is likely to encourage other minorities in other parts of Sudan to raise up arms. We are beginning to see a period of armed struggle as the means of solving the problems of the Sudan despite the possibility that the country will be engulfed in civil war.

So the situation is quite dangerous and pregnant with a lot of problems. Of course on the other side, there is the possibility of peaceful development and this depends on whether the opposition forces and the Communist Party can play a role in achieving democracy within the foreseeable future.

PA: Are there ways you are looking for solidarity both internationally and from the Communist Party USA? How should we support your struggle?

FE: We would appreciate solidarity through really exposing the problems of the Sudan and in particular the problem in Darfur. I mean there is a real tragedy, there is ethnic cleansing and genocide taking place in the Sudan and it is important to stop that. But, it is also equally important to not ignore the real roots of the problem because it can repeat itself in the future. Today what the Americans and the UN are proposing is a solution for the present crisis. It is not a solution for the problem.

What we are looking for, apart from really helping directly trying to solve the humanitarian problem, is to try to have a radical solution that sees the restoration of democratic rights and liberties to all the country, the right for the regions to develop on their own, the right to local autonomy and the right to appoint their own governments. These are the basic things that will solve the problem. The government is trying to confuse the situation by pointing to immediate problems, the bandits and the refugees and so on. Apart from that is why this thing started in the first place. This is the type of solidarity we need: to raise the real issue that the government is responsible for the policies it is following in creating and deepening these crises in the different parts of Sudan.

We’d very much appreciate presenting a different picture from the one presented by the US administration which focuses on the surface problems of the Sudan and which thinks more of the interests of the United States than the interests of the people affected. Because, for example, and this is ridiculous, the United States says there is genocide in the Sudan but is proposing sanctions, not intervention. Not general sanctions against the government or the leading figures of the government. It is sanctions against the Sudan government in the particular area of oil. These sanctions would be against the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese companies control the oil production in the south. So if you impose sanctions on the Sudan, you impose sanctions on the particular companies there. It is very clear why China opposes sanctions on the Sudan. And here you find us like a puppet between two giants.

If we explain the situation in the Sudan in a proper manner, people understand that it is neither the interests of the US nor the interests of China that should prevail, but the interests of the Sudanese people.