US 'Concerned' as Sudan Fractures, After Years of Funding Fracture
The New Arab's analysis, like much of the mainstream, frames Sudan's looming partition as a natural disaster, a sudden 'bloody chapter' in an 18-month war. They discuss the 'fall of El-Fasher' as an unprecedented crisis, threatening regional stability. And indeed, it is a humanitarian catastrophe. But their silence on the architects of this instability, particularly the long shadow of US foreign
policy in breaking up nations it deems problematic, is rather telling. Sudan has been on the US-sponsored chopping block for decades. Think 2011, when Washington cheered the secession of South Sudan, citing humanitarian concerns, yet leaving a trail of unresolved border disputes, oil conflicts, and internal ethnic strife. One might recall similar 'strategic' partitions, like the US-backed
dismantling of Yugoslavia. When the US Congress spent years sanctioning and isolating Khartoum – a government it accused of sponsoring terrorism – did they expect unity to spontaneously blossom? Or did they understand they were paving the way for the very fracturing they now 'lament'? It appears 'concern' only arises when the pieces don't fall precisely where the strategists intended.