EU leads the torn away South Sudan to a new bloody civil war

It’s the definition of the utmost hypocrisy that the European Union now laments the woes of ordinary people caught in the civil war that plagues South Sudan as from last week. Many years ago, Brussels as an agent of a number of European governments, ‘invested’ some millions in a civil war to create this puppet state, by commissioning money and power thirsty local politicians and military, with the hope that Europe could exploit the region’s oil resources and get billions out of it. South Sudan’s ‘declaration of independence’ in 2011 was exclusively sponsored by the European Union, of course with the help of the United Nations. This  new one is the second civil war that Europe is provoking in Sudan. Firstly, to split the country in two and now a second one provoked by Riek Machar, the until recently Vice President of the country, and a close ally of the West. As for the UN, its role in Africa during the past decade resembled a business broker and a catalyst for the plans of its politically strong member states like the US, Europe, China, Russia and India. South Sudan was the first overseas economic-military operation in which the European Union acted as representative of some of its powerful member states. The EU plans actually led to the creation of this newest African state two years ago. Then came the campaign to ‘democratise’ Libya. Europe in this case also shamelessly destroyed a more or (rather) less functioning country, which never knew what democracy means. The until then dictatorship, under an army elite, at least prevented the locals from killing each-other for money, as it happens now. Tribal and ethnic differences re-emerge, fuelled and financed by outsiders and add to the total catastrophe. Africa, as centuries ago This is exactly what happens now in South Soudan, where the European Union, just like in the 18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, considered Africa as an immense hunting ground for every ‘civilised’ and well-armed country or business interests to exploit. Actually, today it’s not only the West that takes advantage of the cheap selling price of everything Africa has, diamonds or fertile land. China and India are also there ‘investing’ in large parts of the continent, signing contracts with the totally corrupt local administrations and rulers, who have even put on sale the tribes that for centuries owned the expropriated lands. Coming back to South Sudan, the artificial character of this ‘state’ appeared again in the latest internal fighting between the different factions. Of course what they fight for between them is the money the country gains from its oil production. Those proceeds are invariably the spoils of the every-time ruler. Given that it’s not difficult or expensive to put together an army, some ambitious local politicians and military now started a civil war caring equally less for the country and citizens. Not to forget that 95% of the country’s incomes come from oil and is paid by the western companies to those locals, who can secure unimpeded exploitation of the resources. This is what Machar eyes now for himself and those who would support him in his fight to gain power. Fighting for the oil incomes Very simply, the rebel leaders want to overthrow the present government and get the oil incomes for themselves. In reality the only local people who get something out of the country’s oil riches are the politicians, the state bureaucracy and the military who can guarantee to their western masters the extraction and the delivery of oil. Nobody in the West or within the local elites cares about the millions of the poor locals. This is exactly what happened in Libya two years ago. Ethnic and tribal differences were also exploited there by foreigners, leading invariably to bloody confrontations. Yesterday the ‘government’ of South Sudan promised to its European masters that they will put together a campaign to recapture the capital of the oil-producing region of the ‘country’, which fell some days ago to the rebels. Brussels reacted by sending to the South Sudan government €50 million to “prevent a humanitarian tragedy in South Sudan”. No details are given about how this money and the food or otherwise aid will reach the hundreds of thousands of the displaced by war locals. Local agents, foreign masters In a completely misleading and full of lies Press release the EU Commission says “The European Commission has humanitarian experts on the ground, liaising with partner organisations in South Sudan on the way forward. The Commission, through its Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department – ECHO – , is able to provide €50 million to respond to the emergency. This money is part of the ECHO’s 2014 Humanitarian Implementation Plan for Sudan and South Sudan”. For one thing not one euro reaches Sudan any-more because in reality this country doesn’t exist. The same is true for neighbouring Somalia. After Europe cut off the oil-producing region of Sudan and recognised it as the ‘independent state’ of South Sudan, what was left of the country had no real existential reason. Nobody cared to keep the country in one piece, even with the African standards of governance. Local war lords and religious factions exploit what-ever productive resources still exist there. What Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia are now producing is refugees, who are drowned in the European sea borders trying to access Fortress Europe. As for the Commission’s humanitarian experts on the ground their role is always questionable, like everywhere in African crisis regions. Usually the EU pays the UN to do the job on the ground and the UN pays God knows who. All in all what Europe is doing in South Sudan is not helping the poor displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Brussels are rather trying to keep their guys in power, but if the rebels win, it will be them who would get the EU blessing. After all, the present rebel leader Riek Machar responsible for the blood-shed in his country was until last July Vice President of South Sudan, right from the first day of its ‘independence’ in 2011, a preferred interlocutor of the West. This is a strong indication with what kind of people the Western powers cooperated with, first to split the country in two and secondly to exploit its oil resources.