Sudan: The Origin & End of the War

According to you to your analysis, what do you think is the pro progenitor of the conflict in Sudan, and does The US sanctions in the previous year in the previous years have anything to do with it?

Okay. Well, of course, US sanctions have something to do with this, certainly. I mean, the, the economic subjugation and really mutilation of Sudan provides the background for everything that's happening now. I mean, since, 1999, Sudan centered their economy around oil when they when they discovered the oil. Oil constituted about 90% of their exports at that time and for about ten years.

So diversification of the economy was never a a priority. But then they lost like 75% of their oil revenue with the creation of South Sudan. And between, 30 to 40% this is back then. Now it's it's very hard to get any numbers, obviously, with because of the crisis. But back then, between, 3040% of Sudan's gold, which is also one of their most valuable commodities and and potential sources of revenue, 30 to 40% of their gold was being smuggled out of the country by, the black market, through the black market.

Now, prior to the coup against Amr al Bashir, Sudan was over $60,000,000,000 in debt. Debt to the IMF, debt to the World Bank, and so on, and and and multiple other foreign, countries, foreign lenders. Now, the protest movement, back in, 2016 or so, was originally focused on the austerity measures that, Amr al Bashir was imposing. For example, at that time, I remember I was, I was interacting with opposition people in Sudan at that time. I remember that fuel prices increased by 25%, and some price, prices of some medicines increased by 300%.

That was back in 2016. So eight some something years ago. But the the the the opposition groups at that time, in my opinion, failed to understand that these austerity policies, these neoliberal policies were being externally dictated to al Bashir, not by al Bashir. They were being dictated by Sudan's lenders. And so because they didn't understand that, the protest movement at that time, the nonviolent civil disobedience protest movement began calling for the overthrow of al Bashir, not understanding that overthrowing al Bashir would not change Sudan's situation.

And indeed, the situation did not change nor did the austerity policies. They continued to be implemented under the new government, under Burhan. I was advising the groups back in Sudan in in 2016, 2017, and so on, that the move to topple Erbashir would likely lead to a military takeover, and that's exactly what happened. And that the military would be even more harsh in imposing the austerity measures and that is exactly what happened. That's not that's not a great trick to be able to predict that because it this is what always happened.

And we had just seen it happen in Egypt, three years earlier. So basically you have all of these factors. The economic subjugation of Sudan, the debt, the neoliberal policies being inflicted on the economy, on the population, and all of this creates tremendous misery and unrest. And when when you're in a situation like Sudan was in and is in now, have to understand that the head of state, whoever that is, is essentially just a manager for external interests. Sovereignty doesn't exist.

Independence doesn't exist. So it becomes, it becomes a question of who is going to be the manager? Who the manager is going to be and whose interests they're going to serve. Now, since, taking power, Burhan has been quite pragmatic and he has largely been compliant with the West, with the IMF and so on. He showed his willingness to be ruthless in the imposition of neoliberal reforms.

But there was you you recall, I mean before this all happened, there was largely for domestic reasons, there was a need to transition to a civilian government. So Burhan announced his intention to do that, to to hold elections. And he said that the RSF would then be integrated into the Sudanese army. And this is what the current conflict this is this is how it started, because the RSF tried to implement a coup. So you can't obviously, you can't divorce what's happening now from the sanctions, but the sanctions themselves also have to be put in the context of the overall policy, neoliberal policy for the economic subjugation of Sudan and the situation that that created within the country with regards to what the job of the government is, which as I say is their job became just to implement these reforms, these neoliberal reforms and impose the austerity measures on the population.

And in in a country like this, in a in and and Sudan is not the only one. There's many many countries like this in the global south, where their sovereignty has been so completely undermined because of debt that the the the as I say, the head of state just becomes a manager for external interests. And that was the case for Omar al Bashir, and it's the case for Burhan. Now that the the I don't wanna get too ahead in the conversation, but what what has happened is that the external interests have now become more varied than they have been in the past. And so far as, usually when the IMF, demolishes a country's economy, they do it exclusively for the interest of western, corporate interests, western foreign investors and so forth.

Now what has happened is that other players have entered that market. Other enters have other players have entered that scenario, including China, including Russia, and including The Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and The UAE. And that is complicating the issue even further. But I'll I I won't jump too far ahead in the conversation.

So I want to move to the second question. Can power be shared between the two generals after the coup and after the war? What is the what is your view on that? Can power be shared?

No. I I don't think so. I don't I don't I don't think power can be shared, and I don't think it should be. I don't think that the RSF deserves even to have that honor, to be honest. In my view, the RSF, first of all, doesn't even have the popular support.

The Sudanese army has the popular support. The RSF is a militia. If if if the RSF is defeated, Inshallah, they will be defeated. And when they're defeated, Sudan will go on. But if the but if the, the army were to be defeated, how would Sudan go on if the army is defeated?

The the the RSF is the thing that has to be, eliminated, and and in my view, they have to be completely, exterminated from the scene, and punished for what they've done. The the they can't possibly share power because the power sharing is what led to this problem in the first place. The RSF should have been disbanded from from day one, rather than, even be given the honor of, any any sort of official status within the government. This this you can't have I mean, Amr Mosher started started this group, started this militia for his own reasons, as a kind of a foil against the army, because he was he himself was afraid of having a coup against him. And this was sort of his to to protect himself.

But now they grew in their own right because it's a private militia. So they grew in their own right. They created their own connections with, for example, The UAE. They created their own connections with Saudi Arabia and so forth. And at one point, they had their their connections with Wagner and with Russia.

So they have their own ambitions, and they're not interested in sharing power. And I don't think that the official government of Sudan, and certainly not the army, should be even considering the possibility of sharing power. This is a rebel faction. It's a it's a it's a terrorist militia in Sudan that's terrorizing the population. The crimes that they've committed are unspeakable.

Now crimes have been committed by the, by the army as well, but, they're doing that in the, for the for the sake of trying to reestablish stability, and and crimes can take place, and violations can take place, in the course of trying to put down an insurrection. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for what whatever crimes that they've done, but the whole nature of the RSF is criminal. The whole nature of that organization is criminal. They're funded through criminal enterprises, through smuggling, just like I I mentioned earlier with the gold. They are a a destabilizing and incredibly dangerous force in Sudan, and they they don't deserve to share power.

They should have power imposed against them, and be brought to justice.

How will this this conflict end when the two generals are in a power struggle and, definitely seeking for more control and control of region and which control of region which comes with control of resources. So how will this end? This is the major question, which I want to

Sure. Well, I think this this is why I sort of, prefaced my statement by talking about what the, position is of a head of state in a country where there's no sovereignty, which is that they are manager for external interests. That means that this conflict will be resolved by those external interests reaching some sort of a consensus, and we're already seeing some signs of that. For example, I mean, everyone knows that the RSF is is funded and armed by The United Arab Emirates. They had a a plan, in my opinion, and I I said this right after the the attempted coup took place, that The UAE was behind that, that The UAE was responsible for that.

And they were interested in trying to secure their own, power and control over Sudan by means of the RSF. And I believe that they had the, they they had, informed all of the other external interests that have that have an interest in Sudan. They had informed them that this is what their plan was, including Russia, including Saudi Arabia, and to one extent or another, even including The United States and Europe. That they wanted to seize power, because they were afraid that if there was, an election, they would be sidelined, that the RSF would be sidelined, and that Burhan would do the same thing as, Sisi, and just declare himself to be the winner of the election and and exchange his, military uniform for a suit and tie. This is what they were afraid was going to happen.

And they wanted to make sure that they could secure I mean, the other the other, side of it I'm sorry to sort of sidetrack, but the other side of it was that The UAE and Saudi Arabia were concerned that if there was any sort of a legitimate democratic election that, figures from the Muslim Brotherhood might come to power, and this is something that they, detested very much as a possibility. So they wanted to secure their own interest. They wanted to secure their own, power and control over Sudan. And so they backed the RSF thinking that they could successfully overthrow the government and take power. Now the, the RSF proved to be too incompetent to achieve that, and the Sudanese army proved to be too competent to allow it to happen, and it has now devolved into the situation that we have now.

But the solution is going to have to be achieved through a consensus between the external parties who are who have their interest in Sudan. And I think that we are seeing some positive signs because Russia and Wagner has changed their position and they're no longer supporting the RSF and they're supporting the Sudanese army. It appears that Egypt is also supporting the Sudanese army. It appears that Saudi Arabia has also changed their position and is supporting the Sudanese army. Now the only thing remaining is to make sure that The UAE completely throws the RSF under the bus and throws their support behind the Sudanese army.

Now I should I should should also mention that this approach, this strategy isn't something new for the Gulf States. This is the same thing that they did in Syria, the same thing that they did in, Libya. They try violence. They try to achieve their, control and power through that their interest is in spreading their sphere of influence. That's their interest.

They wanna spread their sphere of influence and create a kind of a soft empire through the whole of North Africa and the Middle East, Belad Hashem, Syria, Lebanon, so on. And they have they tried back in the mid twenty tens, they tried to achieve that in Syria by the, toppling of Bashar al Assad. Now you see that they've changed their position with regards to that, and now they are mending their ties, with him. And I expect that the same thing, Insha'Allah, will happen in Sudan, and that they will the The UAE seems to be the only holdout from this change in position and making a u-turn from what they had originally initiated. So I think that, if The UAE now will finally, throw the, RSF under the bus, then the, power will go back to the army and the and this the the violent episode of this crisis will end.

That doesn't end the crisis overall, obviously. And then something will have to be done, as you say. Something will have to be done with regards to the crimes that are being committed by, the, by the army, by the Sudanese army. And then a new government will have to be established, but this is down the road. For the time being, what we're focused on is trying to end the violence, and hoping that the violence will come to an end.

And that the only way that that can happen is if the external interests come to a consensus, and that consensus in my opinion must be, that the RSF has to be thrown under the bus, and all, support has to be given to the Sudanese army to end this, insurrection. If you don't mind, I I know you have you have other questions, but I just want to comment on this. As I said, Sudan is in a situation where the external interests have more say and have more power over the country, and I think again, I have to just repeat that the economic subjugation of Sudan is a very real factor and a very real background thing that must be considered. This is the whole context of everything that's going on in Sudan is the economic subjugation of that country, which gives their lenders more power, and it gives the more power to foreign investors. So now when you have that situation, you have now in the world basically two sets of interests.

You have two major factions in the world. There's the West and there's BRICS. BRICS is aligned now with, the or or I should say rather the, Gulf countries are aligned with BRICS. And they have done something in Egypt. This is we we should look at at at other examples of what's, of Okay.

Even though Egypt didn't devolve into a civil war, there was a certain point there was a fear and a danger of that happening. After the, after Sisi, after they removed, Mursi, and Sisi took power, there was the danger. And there was a lot of talk about a civil war. And I I don't I don't wanna derail the conversation too much to talk about that, but the IMF put Egypt in debt slavery under Sisi. They put Egypt in debt slavery, and they, imposed many many neoliberal reforms and and Egypt is suffering from that now.

However, as I was saying, the IMF historically has done what they've done for the benefit of Western companies, Western foreign investors, and so forth. But what happened in Egypt was that the Gulf countries stepped in to take over where the the how can I put this? The vulnerabilities created in the economy that the IMF created in the economy for the benefit of Western companies, the Gulf countries moved in to seize those opportunities for themselves, which in one way liberated Egypt from Western domination. Now what they're trying to do in Sudan is the same thing. Now, tried to do it through a coup.

They tried to take over through a coup because you have to understand that when you're in a country that that doesn't actually have sovereignty, that doesn't actually have independence, and doesn't have even the means for sovereignty or independence, when you're gonna hold a democracy, when you're gonna hold an election, when you're gonna have a democracy, that means handing your country over to the West. That's all that means. You need to understand this. Having elections in a country with no sovereignty means that America is going to control the outcome of your elections, period, the end. That's how it works.

If you're gonna institute a so called democratic system and have elections in your country, all you're doing is inviting the National Endowment for Democracy and the CIA to come into your country and determine the outcome of your elections. That's how the that's one of the ways that the West has determined what government will be in this or that country. Now, as I say, The UAE, wanted to overthrow the government and install their own, ruler, Hameti, or someone else affiliated with them or under their control. Now we have this situation where we're not sure how it's gonna go because the because of the conflict. But something has to be done where, the external powers, and at this point I'm going to say that that's the the BRICS aligned powers, The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on, that they have to come to a consensus to get rid of the RSF, give the give the power to the to Burhan, to the to the army, and then do a transition to someone else, just as they were going to do, just as was going to happen, before the, attempted coup took place and the and the war broke out.

There was already a plan for there to be a transition, but that transition wasn't under their control at that time. So they're going to try, to, I think, reach a consensus to end the conflict with the RSF, put Burhan back in power, or rather consolidate his power, and then either make sure that he is in debt to them and let him put on a suit and tie like Sisi and carry on from there, or else they'll put someone else in power. But at the end of the day, you have to deal with the overall, economic context of Sudan because that's not going to change depending on who's in power or who's not in power. So either either Sudan is going to fall to, Western control or it's going to fall to control of BRICS, to the control of BRICS, which in this case is going to basically mean the GCC, the Gulf countries. In my opinion, it's better for it to fall under the control of the GCC countries than it is for it to fall under the control of the West.

Okay. Well, that that's getting a bit, out of my area of expertise to be honest, to get very much into the, to the internal social and and and cultural, politics of Sudan. That's sort of out of my area of expertise. But what I would say is that all of these types of differences, all of these types of, partitions between people are exacerbated by the economic subjugation of Sudan, and of any country. You even see it in in the West, the the when whenever the economy is in decline, divisions, occur.

And in fact, obviously, Omar al Bashir, had a policy of divide and rule in Sudan. That was one of the ways that he did what he did. And and, along these lines, I know that, the West America has been interested in the idea of a partition of Sudan, East and West, just like they did. They pushed for the, for for South Sudan to to secede. The West was very much in favor of that and pushing that until it eventually it it became an inevitability and it happened, which contributed tremendously to the economic subjugation of Sudan.

As I say, 75% of the oil revenues were coming from the South, so you'd now deprive Sudan of that, and made the situation within Sudan much much worse. So when you when you impose this kind of economic subjugation, economic slavery, debt slavery, neoliberal reforms, austerity measures and so forth, people become increasingly miserable, increasingly desperate, and there's, increasing unrest and increasing division in the country. So, whatever, you can do, to try to bring prosperity to that country, and it has every right and deserves to be a prosperous country. It's a rich country in terms of minerals and agriculture and so forth, and and and gold and oil and natural resources. It's a very rich country and should be a rich country.

But if the external interests are going to approach Sudan because there's no way to get to avoid having external interests. First of all, we can't pretend that, Sudan can can be, can can operate as if it's in a vacuum. The external interests are always going to be there. But, you have to try to have external interests who are not, completely exclusively predatory in their nature, and parasitic in their nature. And the way that the West has always approached Africa, whether it's Sudan or any other country, in fact not just Africa but the entirety of the global South and all of the so called colonized world, they have always taken a predatory parasitic approach, where they want them to have everything, and the colonized people to have nothing.

So if, Sudan, comes under the, sphere of influence of other Global South countries like BRICS, like the GCC and so on. I think that we will, potentially be able to see, greater prosperity within Sudan and that they'll be able to have a greater share, in their own natural, natural wealth, their own national wealth. And this will in and of itself help to ease whatever tensions there are between different ethnic groups, tribal groups, and so forth.

Why is it that the African Union and EGAD are being left out in this process of making peace in Sudan and ending the the disastrous war.

Well, ironically and unfairly, suppose, they're not the major players in Sudan. The major players in Sudan are The UAE, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and The United States. These are the major players. The Western The United States is mostly represented by the IMF and the World Bank. As I said, eight years ago, I'm not even sure what the figure is now, but eight years ago, Sudan was $60,000,000,000 in debt to the IMF and the World Bank and other lenders.

Excuse me. So these are the major players in Sudan, and the resolution to the conflict is going to have to be determined by these players, and some consensus has to be reached. And as I said, I think that, even by what you just mentioned with the recent successes of the SAF against the RSF. I think that we're seeing that the that the tides are turning and that to to one extent to another a a consensus has been reached that the RSF Now, let me just clarify. This isn't for for the powers that are involved, morality doesn't, factor into the equation.

The morality of it doesn't factor into the equation. Support for the RSF by The UAE was never based on any moral reason whatsoever. It was based on we think that they can topple the government and take control. It's based on whether or not you think that this group or that group can win, purely. This is the this is the only factor in the equation.

Now I think that after all of this time they've made the calculation, they've made the evaluation that the RSF cannot do what they promised they could do, which is to take over the government. They're not going to be able to do that. So I think that this is why Russia has made a u-turn. Saudi Arabia has to one extent or another made a u-turn. And now we're just waiting to see if The UAE is gonna make a u-turn.

Egypt also. So I think that once The UAE does make a U-turn and agrees to throw the RSF under the bus, they're probably going to need some kind of guarantees with regards to, I don't know, pardon or or what do you call it, reprieve or something for for the immunity or something for to try to get them to agree to disarm. Otherwise, they're gonna have to just be exterminated militarily. But I think that the the only way that this can be resolved is as I said repeatedly now in this talk, it has to be resolved by the external powers, reaching a consensus that this has to end, and now we have to have some way forward. You have competing interests, external interests in Sudan now.

Previously it was basically just The US and the West, the IMF, World Bank and so on. But like I said, now that you have, for example, just before the coup happened, there was an announcement of a Russian naval base that would be built. Now, The US obviously doesn't want that. China has significant interest in Sudan. As I said, The UAE has significant interest in Sudan.

Saudi Arabia does. Egypt does. These these countries now are players in the conflict. The UAE obviously is is one of the main external players in the conflict actively in terms of their support for the RSF. But we have to understand what's the reasoning behind all of this.

The reasoning behind all of this is like what I mentioned with Egypt, which was, either Egypt is going to fall completely to Western, neo imperialist, corporate foreign investor control, or, their Arab brothers, from the GCC will move in with their endless capital and take over all of those sectors that have been made vulnerable by neoliberal reforms, neoliberal policies. The UAE and Saudi Arabia, but especially The UAE has tried to build their sphere of influence based on a concept of being mediators of conflicting interests in the region. Because they have a good relationship with Russia, they have a good relationship with China, and they have a good relationship with The US. So they have tried to position themselves as mediators or brokers for all of the external interests in this or that country. So their idea, when they, supported the coup attempt, in my opinion, this is just my opinion, their their, thinking behind that was we want to make sure that Sudan is under our control so that we can balance all of the competing interests.

Because if those interests those competing interests cannot be balanced, then one faction is going to become confrontational against the other faction. In other words, America is going to fight, with Russia and China over Sudan, and China is gonna fight with America over control over Sudan. So let's put someone in charge, who can mediate all of the interests. This was the thinking that they had in my opinion. Now, I think that they had backing from Russia, they had approval from Saudi Arabia, and they had approval from America for this based on a promise that the RSF could succeed.

Now we've all seen that the RSF cannot succeed and that they are a brutal criminal militia. So I think that again the consensus has been among most of the BRICS countries that this has to end and the RSF has to be thrown under the bus. And we're just waiting now for The UAE, to join that bandwagon, and let that bandwagon ride over, run over the RSF.

So I want you to, elaborate on how the civilian how how The Sudan can have a civilian role regardless of the of the of the forces, of the armed forces. And the major issue that came in in place in '2 in 2022 in on fourth December twenty twenty two is that the civilian forces, they had an agreement now with the with the armed forces, and they came into, negotiations. So is the the politics in hand here and the former regime, the former, the former members of the of the regime, the I n the I m I the NIF and the NCP, they are still having a per se in in Sudan, and we can see that there are there are issues going on within the leadership the leadership issue, the crisis issue. We find that even the the the second in command of the country had some issues with the with the western western governments and, even say that we shall not listen to the to the to the is the Sudan crisis reminiscent to the Libyan context? For example, you'll find that the the countries that are involved in Sudan are also involved in Libya.

So you explain to us once more again so that our viewers can understand this. Thank you very much.

Okay. Well, I'm I'm I don't, I have to admit, I don't fully understand the question. With regards to civilian forces, backing the army, I think that, you know, and and not having, terribly much power, I don't think that it's a mistake in any way for them to be backing the army against the RSF. What what they've always wanted was stability in their country. I think that, they made some serious mistakes.

As I said, I was I was actually interacting with people from the opposition, back in 2016 and actually advising them not to call for the, overthrow of al Bashir because it would lead to exactly what we're in now. But I think that, when you're in a situation as they're in, which is a terrible horrific crisis situation, you're going to seek, to support the stronger party, and the party that that potentially has the ability to stabilize the situation. So I don't think that it's a mistake at all for them to, be, supporting the, Sudanese army against the RSF. With regards to comparisons to Libya, obviously there are comparisons that can be made. As I said, also comparisons can be made to Syria.

And I I think that what the what the what the western powers would like to see happen is a a partition of the country. They would like to see the East be partitioned off from the West and they would like to see potentially the RSF ruling over there. I think that that might be the sticking point for why we haven't seen The UAE completely make a U-turn yet. Because they they're holding out the possibility that Sudan can be partitioned and they can at least control half of the country. But I think that ultimately what's going to happen, because I believe that we're seeing already a level of consensus among the BRICS nations, and the the the non western external interests in Sudan.

I think that we're seeing a consensus among them that this conflict has to end, and it has to end, by the RSF being completely defeated and annihilated. And so all I can say is that, I pray to Allah that that will happen happen soon.

How will your wonderful campaign, the article six campaign, help the people of Sudan? And I want you to explain it more so that our people can so that our viewers can understand the current situation and how the article six campaign can help the people of Sudan. Thank you.

Well, let me just explain quickly what the article six campaign is. The article six campaign is that we are calling for the invocation of Article six of the UN Charter. Article six of the UN Charter says that any member state of the UN, can be expelled from the United Nations if they are found to have been guilty of persistent violations of the principles of the UN Charter. So we are calling for the invocation of Article six against The United States as the most persistent, insistent, and consistent violator of the principles of the UN Charter. So we are seeking the expulsion of The United States from The United Nations.

Now, what would that mean? Once in we achieve that, what would that mean for Sudan? Well, America has been America instigated, the, crisis in, South Sudan. They, have supported the, partition of Sudan so that so that Sudan, you know, Sudan lost 75% of their oil revenues. They've imposed, the neoliberal reforms and the neoliberal policies, the austerity policies on Sudan.

They have, put Sudan in debt slavery. They economically subjugated Sudan. You go all the way back to, what I don't even remember what year it was now, but in the nineties when they bombed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which was a mortal blow to the, even the the concept of diversifying the economy in Sudan. Not to mention the fact that of the the disease and the illness that spread as a result of that, they have America has been undermining and subjugating Sudan for decades, and they have been able to do that without any consequences. They are, interfering in the domestic politics of Sudan.

They always have been. They were seeking regime change in Sudan, long before there was ever a protest movement, and there's also evidence that they were involved in the protest movement to change it from, as I said originally, the protest movement, back in 2016, originally they were talking about just opposing the austerity measures. They were, the protests were based on policy. But anytime you see a a protest movement in a global South country, particularly in a country, where where the where the government has been deemed by the West, deemed by America to be an official enemy, anytime you see a protest movement in that country, it inevitably becomes a movement to topple the government. It's never it never stays focused on policy changes.

It becomes immediately a a movement to overthrow the government, which is in Western interest. So you had even evidence of Western interference in that protest movement, so that they could actually achieve the destabilization of Sudan. So if if we are able to get The United States removed from the United Nations, then this will curtail the ability of The United States to interfere in countries all around the world because they've done nothing but perpetuate conflicts all around the world. They've done nothing but violate the principles of the UN Charter, and they've been able to do all of this with impunity. So if we're able to get them removed from the United Nations, then this will significantly increase the ability of Sudan to have sovereignty, to have independence, and to be able to run their country without the interference of predatory parasitic western powers.

Africa is demanding for the reforming of the UN Security Council. So how will how will we how will once we achieve the goal of, evoking article six, how will, which country do you think that will take over the process of, of, dominating the the UN?

It's part of the corrupting influence of The United States on global affairs. It's part of the corrupting influence of America's domination of the United Nations. It's part of the corrupting influence of American hegemony that has caused the world population to think that the only way that the world can function is if there is one dominating domineering bully on the global scene. That's not the case. Countries are able to actually get along.

Countries can operate in harmony. Just because one country has more power than another country doesn't necessarily mean that it has to dominate that other country. This is a very American, very western mentality. As I said, they have always approached the global South, and in fact, approached their own that that own that land of America. They approached that country in a predatory fashion, and took over that country by means of genocide.

They have always approached matters from a predatory and parasitic, mentality. This is unique to the West. This is unique, to The United States. So I don't think that, we need to, replace them, and I don't think that they would be replaced. I don't think that it's necessarily the case that if one bully is removed from the stage, another bully will necessarily have to come and replace him.

I think that we we see in the general assembly, for example, that all of the countries of the world are able to reach consensus on this or that issue. And usually, the consensus then ends up being overruled by The United States. But any potential superpower, say China, or the configuration of bricks, which itself already is, more or less of a superpower globally. They already control, more of the, have a greater share of global GDP than the g seven. I think that we see that they're able to actually work in harmony with other countries and on the principle of mutual benefit.

So I don't think that the removal of The United States from the United Nations would necessarily lead to them being replaced by just another bully. I think this is a a mentality that we have developed, as, over the course of the trauma that we've suffered, under American domination.

There is a saying that power collapse power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely. So I I think every

I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry to interrupt you, brother. But the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that's a a western saying. That's not something that is necessarily a universal truth. This is something that's true about them, but it's not true about everyone.

Africa has has a lesser say in terms of global affairs. We are being misrepresented, and our decisions are not taken into consideration. So how, the the the situation is that if the UN, for example, is reformed and more members are included, will we see that there is will we see a change in the geopolitical tensions in the world today?

Well, I think Africa isn't unique in the fact that their voice is not being heard and that their concerns are not being, listened to. I think this is the case of Africa. It's the case of so called Latin America. It's the case of most of Asia. No one really gets listened to.

There as I said, in the general assembly, all of these countries, all of these regions are usually able to reach a consensus on this or that issue, but then that that consensus is overruled by The United States. So I think that it's not even a question of increasing the number of members of the Security Council. As you know, they offer the idea of, I think, three African countries, unnamed African countries to be added to the Security Council, with no veto power, which is just an insult saying that you can you can come and sit at the table, but you can just watch us make decisions. It it's it's not any change or it's not it's not giving those countries any share in the power. I don't think that increasing the number of members of the Security Council is going to make a difference.

What has to make a difference, and the only thing that can make a difference, is if you remove the dominating, bullying, corrupting power in the United Nations, and that's The United States. Once that is removed, then this overruling of the global consensus will come to an end because the because the countries of the world are able to reach a consensus. And you see that even the the the security council members, for example, China sorry, France and The UK, they haven't even used their veto in thirty years. China and Russia, whenever they exercise the veto power, it's generally in favor of and aligned with the global consensus. And they're vetoing an attempt by The United States to internationalize American policy.

So I don't think that the issue is how many people are on the Security Council who has the veto power and so forth. The issue is that we have one member of the United Nations who has been violating the principles of the UN Charter for eighty years. And I think that once that member gets removed, you can see The United Nations actually begin to function in a more equitable way and actually in accordance with the UN Charter, is supposed to give every country large and small an equal voice.

For example, for us here in in Africa, we are having a challenge whereby our education system even, it is being influenced mostly by the West. And when you try to to to go against the the the western system of education here in Africa

What you're talking about now is a is a whole process of decolonization, that is a a lengthy process, and it's a complex process. It's it's an intricate process, and you have, domestic factions of any country of any colonized country, you always have had, factions that you can refer to as the collaborator class, in any country, which are people who are collaborators with the colonizers, who are usually ideologically indoctrinated to believe in the supremacy and the superiority of the colonizers, and they also usually financially benefit from their collaboration with the colonizers. This is an issue that has to be dealt with. This is beyond the United Nations. Simply removing The United States from The United Nations is not going to solve every problem, in the colonized, and neo colonized countries.

These are these are issues that they have to contend with. However, when you look at, for example, the Sahel, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, and so forth, and the very heroic and admirable efforts that they're making for independence, for for me myself, I have trouble sleeping at night worrying about the safety of those leaders. Because America is in control of the United Nations, we know very well how they deal with any colonized country that tries to hold their head up and assert their independence and their sovereignty. We know very well how America deals with these types of leaders and these deals with these types of countries means they're in danger. And the reason that they're in danger is because America controls the United Nations and has the ability and has the impunity to do whatever they want all around the world.

So if the, The United States is removed, from the United Nations and therefore that impunity is removed from them, that will increase the safety and the security for any leaders in the global South to actually try to stand up and decolonize their countries, whether it's on the educational level or what have you, whether it's on the level of business and so forth, and resisting the coercion of foreign investors and so forth. Any country that wants to assert their independence, is is under the the the sword of Damocles anytime they try, to assert their independence. You might have leaders that you think of as puppets, but you have to understand the situation that they're in. Like I was talking about earlier with Omar al Bashir, he was imposing austerity measures on Sudan not because he was dictating those policies, but those policies were being dictated to him. So he was a dictator who was taking dictation, And the same is true in many countries, in country after country after country.

And, the the the rulers of those countries, the the governments of those countries are often portrayed as puppets when in reality they're hostages. And there's only so much power they have. Because if they step too far out of line, they'll have their head cut off. So this, danger, this risk, this threat that that the, various leaders of the Global South are under, one of the reasons that they're under that threat, one of the reasons that they have that risk is because America has the impunity that it has because of their domination of the United Nations. So if America, is removed from the United Nations, and faces consequences for their actions, then their own actions will be different, and this in and of itself will increase the safety and the security for any country in the global South that wants to assert its independence and sovereignty.