On the Anniversary of the October 1964 Revolution: So That the Experience of Outbreak of War Is Not Repeated (1/2)

By: Taj al-Sir Osman. 1. In a previous article, we highlighted the lessons and experience of the 1964 October Revolution and the necessity of learning from them. We are republishing this study, titled 'So That the Experience of Outbreak of War Is Not Repeated,' which was published on the Sudanile website on August 23, 2023, and which addressed the lessons and reasons for the setback of the December Revolution leading up to the outbreak of the currently ongoing cursed war. 2. The war that broke out in the country is a link in a chain of plots to abort the December Revolution after the failed experience of partnership with the military and the Janjaweed; for war is a means to achieve political goals through military means. The December Revolution came as a result of the accumulation of a long struggle waged by our people's masses for about thirty years, with the aim of achieving their goals as stated in the 'Forces of Freedom and Change' declaration charter signed in January 2019. However, the Security Committee's coup on April 11, 2019, blocked the path before the revolution, and the 'Constitutional Document' was signed between the Military Council and the 'Freedom and Change' forces, which reproduced the repressive and economic policies of the former regime that reflect the interests of parasitic capitalism and dependency on global capitalist institutions and their think tanks, such as the World Bank, the IMF, Chatham House, etc. These aim to externally orient our economy, plunge the country into more external debt exceeding 60 billion dollars, further impoverish our people, impose a policy of economic liberalization, and withdraw subsidies for basic commodities, education, and health—which have witnessed further deterioration after the ongoing war—and plunder the country's resources and wealth. This is in addition to maintaining external military alliances, such as remaining in the Arab-Islamic coalition for the Yemen war, continuing to send our soldiers to a war in which we have no stake, and remaining in AFRICOM forces, as well as maintaining military bases and intelligence cooperation agreements that compromise our national sovereignty. 3. The plot to block the path of the revolution via the Security Committee's coup came within the framework of the 'soft landing' scenario, which had been known since the report of U.S. Envoy Princeton Lyman titled 'The Road to National Dialogue in Sudan' on August 13, 2013, in which he indicated the necessity of proposing a broad dialogue involving even the Islamists with the aim of forming a government representing a broad base. This was after the rise of the mass movement and the wobbling of the Ingaz regime, and the fear of America and its allies regarding the emergence of a popular revolution that would lead to radical change in the country, resulting in a democratic system that threatens their interests and those of their international and regional allies in the region, and with the goal of continuing the same policy of dependency with cosmetic changes to the system of governance. The 'soft landing' parties, as in the 'Sudan Call,' expressed their support for dialogue with the Bashir regime and participation in the 2020 elections instead of the popular revolution and the slogan of 'downfall of the regime' proposed by the Communist Party and its allies. In addition to blocking the revolution, the Military Council used brutal violence in front of the General Command, as happened in the 8th of Ramadan events and the massacre of the General Command sit-in and the states on the 29th of Ramadan, which was a crime against humanity that still awaits accountability and retribution for the martyrs. Thereafter, regional, global, and intelligence circles pressured both parties to the conflict—the Military Council and a part of the Forces of Freedom and Change—to sign a power-sharing agreement instead of full democratic civilian authority. The result was that the military obtained 5 seats on the Sovereignty Council, the right to appoint the Ministers of Interior and Defense, and exclusive oversight of reform within the armed forces. The document also constitutionally legalized the existence of the Rapid Support Forces militias, which pose a danger to the national nature of the army and the unity of the country, and kept the gold wealth in the hands of the Ministry of Finance, and kept peace and the comprehensive, just solution in war zones in their hands, considering they were a party to the genocide with Bashir, his former regime, and its figures wanted by the International Criminal Court. America, the UAE, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia supported the agreement; Saudi Arabia and the UAE granted the Military Council 3 billion dollars and paid money for Hemedti's forces in Yemen. This 'flawed' agreement, which constitutionally enshrined the existence of the militias whose fire our people are suffering from in the war raging now, and the presence of military personnel on the Sovereignty Council, led to military dominance with the aim of blocking the path to the revolution and preventing the arrival of a democratic system that threatens the interests of America and its allies in the region. To be continued.