In response to the third article by Dr. Siddiq Al-Zayla’i… Written by: Dr.  Ahmed Othman Omar – Sudanile

In response to the third article by Dr. Siddiq Al-Zayla’i… Written by: Dr. Ahmed Othman Omar – Sudanile

[email protected]
The essence of the soft landing strategy is to maintain empowerment, and everyone who calls for it maintains it, even if their intentions are good!!
In his third article in response to my article about describing the dispute between (Shameless) and the forces of radical change as a strategic dispute and not a tactical one, which was titled “Soft landing strategy: The proposed idea and how it turned into a curse?”, Dr. Siddiq Al-Zayla’i cited excerpts from the paper written by Princeton Lyman. The godfather of the soft landing, and he followed it by literally saying the following: “This is the perception of the authors of the soft landing strategy, and it was a product of the international community’s belief in the inability of the opposition to defeat the regime.” And he did well, because this perception is based on the fact that whoever is unable to defeat the regime must enter into negotiations with it to share power. Participation in power inevitably means the survival of the regime, expanding its social base, breaking its isolation, and integrating it into the international community. That is, it means the survival of the empowering authority and its system without dismantling, and the participation of the opposition to this empowering authority in its system, which confirms that the essence of this strategy is to preserve empowerment and recognize it as a fait accompli that cannot be defeated. We do not know what the American administration intended by involving the opposition in the regime’s authority, and what the Sudanese people would have gained from this participation other than continued empowerment? What is strange is that Lehman himself was aware of the dangers of dialogue with the Salvation Authority, as Dr. Siddiq Al-Zayla’i quoted him as follows: “The most dangerous threat is the ruling regime’s attempt to exploit it for its own purposes or to completely thwart it if it begins to take an undesirable direction, and this will require preparing strategies to deal with both threats.” .
It is clear that Lehman and others were unable to develop any strategies to deal with both threats, because Dr. Siddiq himself stated in his article the following: “With the well-known malice of the Islamists, they exploited the strategy to improve the regime’s image before the international community and obtain some gains. So they organized what was called the Wathba Dialogue, and allowed For the participants to present their opinions and prepare good recommendations, which Al-Bashir placed in his notes when they were delivered to him.
Despite the lack of confidence of those who designed the project in the capabilities of the Sudanese people, it was a serious attempt that the regime emptied of any content.” This confirms that the soft landing project led to the preservation of empowerment, because it was based on a belief in the impotence of the opposition (and the people by extension), and neglect of the nature of The regime, which Lyman called threats. Whoever participated in the Al-Wathba dialogue is either astonished about the nature of the regime and its unwillingness to give up any part of its authority and its reliance on the strategy of inclusion rather than participation, or it is willing to participate in power from positions of annexation to the authority of empowerment, and in both cases it is excessive. In the rights of our people and strengthening the authority of their enemy who has control over them. Thus, the soft landing strategy becomes a situation linked to the Salvation regime and its remaining in power, and the desire to share its authority and maintain its empowerment. Describing the forces that do this as a soft landing is a description of their condition and their position that is hostile to the interests of our people, knowingly or negligently. It is a curse because it leads to continued empowerment.
It is important to emphasize that using the term soft landing, and describing the forces that currently belong to it, is not taking the strategy or the term out of their historical context, because the authority of empowerment still remains, and because the forces that dialogue with it and participate with it are still doing so from a position of belief that they are weak and cannot defeat empowerment. Because he is armed, and because these forces share the authority with Tamkeen and act as an internationally acceptable front for him, and float him. Dr. Siddiq Al-Zailai’s attempt to bury the soft landing in a specific historical period ignores the essence of this strategy, and does not give us a description that explains the paradox of the soft landing forces of this strategy. If we accept, for the sake of argument, that this strategy is only historical, then what does Dr. Qubool call (shameless) the continuation of the empowering authority represented by the Security Committee in power, and its participation in an authority in which it has the upper hand in accordance with the constitutional document and successive agreements up to the framework agreement, and the insistence that it is unable to overthrow it and declare this? And circulate this empowerment internationally? What does the settlement with the Security Committee for Salvation, its sharing of power, and the preservation of its gains mean if it is not a floatation of the regime and a soft decline for it in exchange for its overthrow through a popular revolution? What is strange is that Dr. Siddiq literally says the following: “Terms such as the soft landing, the political settlement, and the political solution have become used outside of their historical and objective context, and have turned into a tool to describe political opponents by pursuing self-interests and denying the interests of the popular masses,” and immediately after that he cites a text from a session of the party’s Central Committee. The Communist Party (August 1977), to confirm that the Communist Party did not reject the principle of reconciliation as a method for a political solution. I ask him with all love: Is the one who uses the term soft landing and its strategy designed to confront a regime whose palace coup authority is still in power taking the term out of its historical context, or the one who uses a session issued in August 1977 on a specific topic (national reconciliation) to project it onto a current political situation that is completely different from it? ? It is clear that the session of the Central Committee was issued to evaluate a specific political event in its historical context, after analyzing the nature of power, the balance of power, the interest of the people, and the available conflict mechanisms and tools, and it is related to that specific topic and not to determining a general position on reconciliation. Therefore, it cannot be used, considering that the party established it as a general principle for reconciliation with any authority and at any time, in implementation of the rule of the general meaning of the word, not regarding the jurisprudential reason, which does not fall within the system of the Marxist analysis approach in any way. The party operates in a historical context and according to a theory of conflict that governs its use, determines its law, and defines its visions not based on the term, but rather based on laws and sayings that determine how the term is used, or this is what I think at the very least.
But despite this, I must emphasize that the radicals do not reject the principle of settlement or reconciliation in its entirety and outside its historical context, but they specifically reject the settlement with the Salvation regime and its ruling security committee now and at this historical moment, and they do not reject the principle of national reconciliation in the year 1977 AD. In the same way that the Communist Party criticized a concrete incident before it at that time, they criticize and reject the settlement with the Security Committee for Salvation specifically for the following reasons:
1- The Security Committee for Rescue is the striking arm of empowerment, and its system cannot be dismantled by entering into a settlement with it. It represents the system of parasitic capitalism with which a settlement cannot be entered into, but must be removed.
2- The settlement aborts the goals of the glorious December Revolution, prevents them from being achieved, supports the regime, and achieves the soft landing strategy.
3- This settlement takes place in the event of a mass uprising capable of defeating the Security Committee for Salvation and a great revolution, and it is against the will of the masses and forced upon them and from positions of guardianship that go beyond the slogans of the masses and lead their revolution to containment and then liquidation.
If we accept, for the sake of argument, the application of what was stated in the session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in August 1977 AD outside its historical context and projecting it onto the current situation, are the conditions stated therein for reconciliation available in the current settlement that comes in the context of a soft landing? In order to facilitate the response, we quote what Dr. Al-Zayla’i literally said: “Reconciliation begins with a fundamental change in the apparatus of power, its constitution, and its laws. Complete democratic freedoms are available without restrictions to political parties, unions, mass organizations, and newspapers, so that the people can express their opinion, and each party and trend can come forward with the solutions it sees, and everyone who has committed crimes against them will move away from positions of government responsibility.” The people and the nation. It led the political situation to crisis and the brink of collapse, liquidated the detention centers and prisons, published the merits of the unjust trials, restored the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law its sovereignty, established new rules and regulations for general elections, and put forward for discussion and review any foreign treaties and agreements that affected the nation’s sovereignty and independence. “It represents a transitional period for the final liquidation of the forms of government that led to the crisis, and the formation of new forms codified by a democratic constitution that safeguards the rights of all, and spares the country the disasters of bloody conflicts and civil wars.”
The meaning of the above is that the settlement with the Security Committee for Salvation is a soft landing, because it preserves empowerment, the essence of the rescue system, and involves the Salvation in the task of dismantling it as an illusion, and frustrates the path of the revolution and prevents it from achieving its goals, and it is done from a position of lack of trust in the masses of our people and acknowledgment of defeat before the committee. Wishing for salvation, and making concessions that prevent the achievement of the revolution’s goals of freedom, justice and peace, in the complete absence of understanding the nature of the enemy and accepting partnership with him in power. Of course, we will expand on these matters later when we come to respond to what my friend Dr. wrote. Siddiq Al-Zayla’i about the political solution.
(We continue the conversation)

See also  SRG launches fight against CHF 200 initiative ++ The military is the most important Swiss hotel guest ++ Employees are sick more often than ever before

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Popular

On Key

Related Posts