(SS)

Ahead of the self-determination referendum for south Sudan, Sudan is facing intensive international pressures and division threats. It is not ruled out that these threats and pressures are part of a political bargaining campaign to make the Sudanese government offer some sovereign concessions.

On July, 13, 2010, the US New York Times newspaper published a lengthy article in which the writer suggested suspension of the International Criminal Court memo for a  year. He attributed the proposal to what was described by the article as the real peace between Sudan and southern Sudan tribes.

Any reader will not find it difficult to realize the objectives of the poisonous article because, regardless of key role of the writer in internationalizing the Sudanese crises, the article exposes its agendas.

The article is poisonous because it serves the ICC agendas of blackmailing and intimidating Sudan to force it accept provision of concessions. If they believe that the ICC is a just court with no political or racial agendas, why do they want to suspend its charges?.

Why do they put forward this proposal in this particular time? And why do they link the suspension of the charges with settling the dispute between Sudan and its southern tribes?.
The other shameful thing was the call by the writer for giving Sudan a chance to find a solution with its southern tribes, although everybody knows that Sudan is not witnessing any crisis with its southern tribes.

Seemingly, the article deliberately ignored the fact that the current dispute is between the tribes of south Sudan on one hand and the southern tribes and the SPLM on the other. In the meantime, the UK Guardian has sent a clear warning that secession of south Sudan could lead to a new civil war in Sudan.

The said warning messages to the separatists represent a clear and naive attempt by those who were supporting secession in Washington and other European capitals to wash their hands of it.