I reported yesterday on the confiscation of newspapers in Sudan and the publishers' reaction in suspending production.
These incidents occurred amid street protests and riots against austerity measures introduce by the government led by the president, Omar al-Bashir.
Today, the Sudanese embassy in London sent me a press release that seeks to place the demonstrations, and the "robust" reaction of the security forces, in context.
"Violence and not peaceful protests forced the police to respond in order to protect property and government institutions," it said. "Many innocent Sudanese citizens and policemen lost their lives, a tragedy for the whole country."
It also explains why it was necessary for the government to remove food and fuel subsidies and goes on to quote a paragraph apparently favourable to al-Bashir in an article published in The Economist, "Riots in Sudan":
"The traditional opposition parties, all led by ageing men, tend to be weak, inarticulate and ill-organised. Mr Bashir's strength is that, so far, no obvious alternative to him has emerged".
The release does not convey the overall negative tone of The Economist report, however, ignoring its detail about the death toll and its mention of the killing of a young pharmacist in central Khartoum that "sent shock waves through the heart of Mr Bashir's regime."
Nor does the embassy's statement touch at all on the confiscation of newspapers and the claims by publishers that their finances are being squeezed by such activities.
Sources: Media Office, Embassy of Sudan, London/The Economist
