AFRICANEWS

Sudan

U.S. yet to formulate new policy on Sudan

War

For the past month, senior U.S. government officials have been calling for a fresh policy to deal with Sudan. But despite these high-profile calls, nothing concrete has been proposed.

One month after U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated that ending Sudan's civil war was a top priority, the U.S. has yet to formulate a clear, new policy on Sudan. Hardliners are urging President George W. Bush to act tough on Sudan, yet no unified strategy on how to do this is emerging.

The most novel proposal has come from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private Washington think tank with strong Republican connections. It suggests partitioning Sudan into two political entities but under one state. Observers note that Bush might go for the idea, since his policy director for Africa at the National Security Council, Michael Miller, and several former US ambassadors who served in Africa in the last Republican government of Bush's father are all strong supporters of the think tank.

The divide-Sudan suggestion is based on the premise that neither the Sudanese government nor the rebel Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA) have adequate military resources to claim a decisive victory. However, the proposal is not clear where the projected boundaries of each entity will be. There is speculation these will be the colonial borders that divided Sudan into North and South before independence in 1956. If such is the case, then it is not surprising that Khartoum has rejected the proposal as that will involve giving up the oil wells it controls in the South.

“We categorically refuse both the content and implications of the paper,” said President Omar el Bashir. The SPLA has also rejected it claiming “the proposed 'one country two systems' arrangement would permanently legitimise the very fascist state that is the engine of the war.”

Another proposal, from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and others, is to maintain economic sanctions levied in 1997 by former president Bill Clinton as a way of forcing the Sudanese government to stop its human rights abuses. “Reducing sanctions against Sudan at this time - after the Sudanese government has made no concessions but rather has increased its civilian bombings and other atrocities - would be to reward the latter for worsening behaviour,” warns the commission.

Calls for the U.S. to come up with a tougher policy on Sudan began shortly after the Comboni Missionaries working in southern Sudan put out a statement in late January, which described the Sudanese conflict as a “tragic farce.” On March 9, key advisers on Africa from the State Department, the Agency for International Development and the National Security Council concluded after their “brainstorming session”: ''The human suffering in Sudan has been an enormous tragedy. Ending the conflict remains a priority." This was an echo of what Powell told the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives on March 7: ''There is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the Earth today than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.''

Two days later, Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, introduced in the House of Representatives the Sudan Peace Act, which would require President Bush to report whether Sudan's oil revenues are being used to finance the war. Last October, a similar bill received majority support in the House but a Senate version did not pass. “America must not continue to turn a blind eye to the atrocities in Sudan,” said Tancredo. “With a new administration, we must begin a new chapter in our quest to bring an end to the brutal civil war in Sudan.” Another Republican, Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee, also tabled a similar bill in the Senate.

On March 13, Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, wrote to the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the acting chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Treasury Secretary. He voiced his concern that several foreign oil companies have inadvertently perpetuated the suffering in Sudan by doing business there. “Oil revenues are supporting the government of Sudan's continued campaign against the people of southern Sudan, which is why I am bringing this matter to the attention of the SEC and the NYSE," said Wolf in the letter to Richard Grasso, the Chairman, NYSE.

By March 21, when the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom called for a tightening of the sanctions and punishment of the foreign oil companies in Sudan, American politicians had abandoned partisan positions, with Democrats and Republicans issuing a joint statement terming the Sudanese situation “a nightmare of unspeakable proportions.”

The legislators announced the formation of a bipartisan “Sudan Caucus” committee to be co-chaired by Wolf and Charles Rangel a Democrat from New York. “Our goal is to have peace with justice by the end of the year,” said Wolf. "It's not a Republican thing. It's not a Democratic thing. It's a humane thing," said Rangel. That same day, at a dedication at the Catholic University of Washington, President Bush vowed “we have a responsibility to stand for human dignity and religious freedom wherever they are denied, from Cuba to China to southern Sudan.” Three days later, the House Whip in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, a Republican, promised: “We won't stand for what's going on in the Sudan. We need to do whatever is necessary to stop this carnage that's going on.”

But that is where the problem lies: the U.S. has yet to state how it will woo the Sudanese government and the SPLA to peacefully conclude the conflict. The U.S. has remained a strong supporter of the SPLA. Matters have been complicated by the fact that the U.S. has yet to lift the embargo or denounce its support for the rebels.

Moreover, even if the Sudanese government agreed to negotiate, there is no guarantee that it will be a sincere partner because it now controls the most important asset of the war: the oils fields. The fields have made Sudan a middle-level oil producer, earning US$500 million from oil exports per year. Part of the petrodollars are being used to buy more and technically sophisticated military hardware for a war that costs US$2 million per day, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In fact, the U.S. has underestimated the potential of Sudan's oilfields. In a November 2000 report, the U.S. Department of Energy revealed that the oil reserves are approximately three billion barrels rather than the previously thought 1.2 billion barrels. With a production rate of 210,000 barrels per day, oil now accounts for 16 per cent of Sudan's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), proving to be a boon to the economy. “Oil is fundamentally changing Sudan's war,” warns the Washington Centre report. “It is shifting the balance of military power in favour of Khartoum.”

Analysts say that President Bush should urge Western and Asian governments to discourage oil companies from operating in Sudan. If that succeeds, then the Islamic regime will get the message that it cannot bet on the petrodollars to snatch a military victory and might be willing to negotiate. “A strategy that threatens Sudan's oil development can quickly have a strong impact on Khartoum and can bring the government to the negotiating table for serious discussions,” says Roger Winter, the Executive Director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees.

On the other hand, if it fails, one can expect the war to escalate and the government to consolidate its hold on the oilfields, which the Mujahedeen (Islamic fighters) claim are “Allah's gift to them.” This is why the U.S. Religious Commission has said that it will ask the American government to give non-lethal aid to the south for roads, bridges and other necessities. So far, the U.S. is the largest donor to Sudanese relief operations, having spent more than US$1.5 billion since 1983. Most of the aid goes rebel areas.

Experts agree that the Sudanese conflict is one of the most intractable in Africa. So far it has claimed two million lives, displaced 4.4 million people, and sent another 600,000 to exile. According to the U.S. Committee for Refugees, Sudan produces the largest number of uprooted people in the world, with one out of every eight refugees and displaced persons in the world being a Sudanese. This has been blamed on the fact that the country's successive military regimes have never solved contentious issues that have divided the country, such as whether Sudan should have a secular or Islamic government and whether the south plus the Nuba Mountains should remain part of Sudan or should secede.

| CONTENTS | AFRICANEWS HOMEPAGE |

AFRICANEWS - Koinonia Media Centre, P.O. Box 21255, Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254.2.576175 (voice) Fax:- +254.2.577892 (fax-modem)
AFRICANEWS on line is by Koinonia Media Centre