A quick discipline or a lasting punishment?
In 1997, some nineteen years ago, a man lived in the shadows of North Africa and Middle east. He was a top notch international criminal, ranked the world’s most wanted terrorist. He was a threat especially to the United States and the World at large. He was Osama Bin Laden
Osama Bin Laden was an Al-Qaida leader and a sworn enemy to the United States. Unfortunately for Sudan, he had been living in Khartoum for five years when America imposed a trade embargo and froze the government’s assets in the U.S in 1997. Osama Bin Laden was the first to earn Sudan a place on the U.S blacklist for state sponsors of terrorism.
However, can we really agree that Osama Bin Laden was the first to earn Sudan a spot in the Blacklist? or it was just a mere political play in the hands of those that held the power chess. The veracity of a state action is subject to its intention and the circumstances around such.
This is 2016, and its nineteen years after, yet Sudan still remains on the blacklist alongside only two other states: Iran and Syria. This practically implies that nearly a whole generation had grown up knowing nothing more than the embargo alongside its circumstances in there State.
The list has left a small country like Sudan almost oblivious to the World. The trade embargo has had and is still having adverse effect on its economic growth, skill development and international relations and cooperation.
One might begin to wonder, considering the circumstances in this state, if the U.S has actually been fair enough not to grant this country their right, at least to be independent from such oppression. At lest it’s trite law that any force applied to any crime should be relative to the crime committed. The gravity of offence determines the gravity of punishment. Its quite sad that what I can observe is the applications of punishment pursuant to the strength of applicability.
Recently, the youths have gone on the social media especially Twitter, to describe the daily isolation from the global community through blocked websites, phone apps and services, having to turn to Virtual Private Networks (V.P.N) and proxies to trick servers about their location.
***they’ll probably have a lot of tweak gurus in that country, youths turning to
alternative methods to access the internet. A situation where the law has failed to curtail the possibility of illegality in trying to legally impose restrictions.
MY STAND, however, is that first at the validity of the sanction. Following the reasonable man test, a trade sanction on a country for abetting a terrorist seem appropriate. Now it’s further acceptability is the mode of application. It’s common knowledge that a punishment is always relatively applied to a offense. Any deviation from such common knowledge is nothing more than an abuse of power and undue influence over another party.
There should also be a realistic view on this sanction. Technology is evolving and the world s going global. A punishment for an action committed in the ‘90s is no excuse to continually administer such in the recent decade. Besides V.P.N has been an alternative website access, what’s the guarantee that every internet service is still being controlled?
Lastly, the world is going global. Technology is advancing at a speedy rate and it has embraced commercial transaction within its ambit. The Sudanese need to leverage on the advantages of Online Transactions, e-banking, transfers etc. The U.S can’t continue in such manner and claim to he active in the U.N. I hope the States turn a new leaf and give unto Sudan what they really need.
Every country deserves to be independent, deserves to be free. Sudan needs to ne independent, free and given back its Dignity as a State.
Abu Samuel, 200L