AFRICANEWS

Sudan

U.S. policy toward Sudan: Peace or more war?

War and peace

Should the United States make ending the war in Sudan its primary policy goal toward the region or should it continue its policy of seeking to bring down the National Islamic Front government in Khartoum and of backing the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army? Two think-tanks give their recommendations.

“The judgment of history will be determined by the courage and determination of the international community to take bold steps now to help this cruel war end. In our judgment, the United States must play a central role in this effort,” stated Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola Tallahassee and head of Catholic Relief Services, in a press conference in Nairobi after ending a tour of Sudan with three other American Catholic bishops. The international community and the United Nations, he said, should help negotiate, then monitor, an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan.

Although it is “perfectly clear” that the Sudan government bears the primary responsibility for the war, Bishop Ricard continued, “from our discussion we have found that this conflict cannot be characterized in simple terms. All attempts to reduce the war to any single factor distort reality and do not serve the cause of peace.”

The strength of the Bishop's call for peace has intersected a growing debate among policy makers on Africa around the United States government. The crux of the issue is whether the United States should make ending the war in Sudan its primary policy goal toward the region or whether it should continue its policy of seeking to bring down the National Islamic Front (NIF) government in Khartoum and of backing the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army (SPLA).

This debate has erupted into the public view recently in Washington. On Feb. 26, J. Stephen Morrison, head of the Africa Program at the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and Francis Deng, a southern Sudanese scholar, presented the results of a CSIS task force study on Sudan, entitled “U.S. Policy to End Sudan's War.”

The CSIS report calls upon the Bush administration to “explicitly concentrate U.S. policy toward Sudan on the single, overriding objective of ending the war.” For too long, stated Deng, who is also co-chair of CSIS' task force, the United States has focused on human rights abuses, slavery, terrorism, and other problems in Sudan. But the task force, he said, has been forced to recognize that the problems all stem from the war and cannot be solved unless the war is ended. He pointedly noted that “all parties believe that there can be no peace unless the United States plays a leading role.”

Not only is ending the war a necessity for the population of Sudan, particularly in the South, where famine conditions are emerging anew. The U.S. policy of pursuing the war against the NIF government in Khartoum is the foundation stone for an overall policy toward Africa that has favored warlords and violence.

The CSIS task force report recommends that the Bush administration take the following policy measures to achieve peace:

• create an international nucleus of Sudan's neighboring states – along with Norway and Britain – to build a peace process;
• make the Declaration of Principles of the Inter-Governmental Development Authority (IGAD) the basis of negotiations;
• propose an interim arrangement of one-state, two-systems for Sudan during the peace process;
• “devise multilateral inducements and pressures that move both sides to participate in peace negotiations in good faith;”
• lay the basis for self-government in the south;
• implement confidence-building measures among all sides;
• restore full diplomatic relations with the Sudan government; and
• complete ongoing U.S.-Sudan negotiations on the issue of terrorism.

Representing a dissenting view on the podium was Roger Winter, executive director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, who has lobbied relentlessly for a policy to bring down the Sudan government and continue the war in the south to that purpose. Winter is understood to be the political godfather of the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Susan Rice. The two "Africa hands" also testified in joint hearings on March 28 held by the House of Representatives Subcommittees on Africa and on International Operations and Human Rights.

Winter and Michael Young, spokesman for the Committee on Religious Freedom in the United States, testified at the congressional hearings on Sudan. Young made it clear that the policy of the Clinton administration should remain under the new presidency, but active measures against the Sudan government should be escalated. He recommended that the Bush administration:

• appoint a peace and human rights envoy for Sudan, but not restore diplomatic relations with Sudan;
• give aid to southern rebel groups outside the confines of the United Nations' Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS);
• increase funding to southern groups through the Star program of the U.S. Agency for International Development;
• launch a worldwide diplomatic initiative to force a halt to aerial bombing by the Sudan government of civilian targets;
• strengthen U.S. economic sanctions against Sudan and make it impossible for oil companies operating in Sudan to raise capital on the New York Stock Exchange;
• force all companies doing business with Sudan to fully disclose their operations;
• initiate negotiations on the basis of the IGAD principles; and
• step up media reporting of human rights abuses by the Sudan government.

Under direct questioning from Representative Ed Royce, chairman of the House Africa Subcommittee, Young stated that he did not think U.S. military assistance should go to the southern Sudan rebels nor should U.S. troops be sent to southern Sudan.

In essence, the policy represents a continuation – with slightly escalated tactics – of the policy of the Clinton administration. This policy has resulted in maintaining the ability of the SPLA forces in the south to continue the war, but without ever giving the SPLA the means to achieve victory. The goal is to ensure that the Sudan government cannot win a victory. The result is the continuation of the war and destruction of lives and property of Sudanese civilians, particularly in the South. Even more dangerously, the war is contributing to the disintegration of the political forces in both North and South into rivaling factions, often leading to ferocious violence in the South and political repression in the North.

According to CSIS, the Clinton administration's policy did nothing to improve the situation in the South. "Throughout the Clinton era, ambiguities persisted over true U.S. intentions: whether the preeminent U.S. aim was to force a regime change, to press for reform of Khartoum, or achieve a sustainable end to Sudan's war,” says the CSIS task force report. “The United States pursued these multiple ambitions simultaneously, with little attention paid to whether regime change was ever achievable or how to reconcile these diverse and seemingly contradictory policy aims. In the meantime, these ambiguities encouraged the mistaken belief in Khartoum that the United States was engaged in a covert war to overthrow the Sudanese government.”

To critics of a policy goal of peace, task force co-chair Morrison challenged policymakers to come up with a better alternative, given the failures of the past policy.

The primary constituencies for maintaining the war are found among the Christian right, which has mobilized around the issue of religious persecution, and the Black Congressional Caucus, which has been mobilized around the issue of slavery in Sudan. It is noteworthy that at the hearings, there was no discussion of the allegations of Sudan's involvement in terrorism, the charge that had supplied the "national security" reason for hostility toward Sudan.  This is because the Sudan government has taken major steps since 1995 to sever its relations with terrorist organizations and to cooperate with U.S. law enforcement agencies against terrorism. Without that, the CSIS call for a peace policy toward Sudan would be impossible.

Some observers argue that the United States cannot pursue a policy of peace if it does not shift its stance to a more neutral position among the warring parties. Given that all parties believe that peace cannot be achieved unless the United States takes the lead to bring it about, it is crucial that constituencies be built for peace – as opposed to war – in Sudan.    

| 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