Sudan A Pariah State?
16 October, 2011
Khartoum, (sudanow.info.sd)- In the first article we established that Sudan is a valuable ally and credible partner in America's war against terror. Nonetheless, the various US administrations systematically condone a policy of hostility and rejection against Sudan. Many quarters in Washington campaign vigorously to label Sudan a pariah state. Strange enough, these hostile policies continued for more than twenty years as an attempt to punish, destabilize, and facilitate the downfall of the Sudanese government.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 to achieve a sustainable end to Sudan's war, with little attention paid to whether regime change was achievable or how these diverse and seemingly contradictory policies would be reconciled.
As early as February 1991, the US withdrew its embassy personnel and closed its embassy in Khartoum. Two years later the US government placed Sudan on the list of states it considers sponsors of terrorism, 12 August 1993. Washington froze Sudanese assets in US banks, imposed economic sanctions that banned trade exchange with the Sudan (with the glaring exception of Gum Arabic and information), and prohibited US investments and financial transactions with the country.Washington also extended $20 million in surplus military equipment ("non-lethal") to Ethiopia, Uganda, and Eritrea, in a covert war to overthrow the regime in Khartoum through its neighbors. In October 1997, the U.S. imposed comprehensive economic, trade, and financial sanctions against the Sudan. In August 1998, in the wake of the East Africa embassy bombings, the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.Furthermore, in late 1999, the US government reportedly supplied weapons to the southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).
Despite normalization of diplomatic relations by Western European nations and Sudan's neighbors with Khartoum in late 1990s,Sudan-US relations grew increasingly hostile through the 1990s. Many American officials perceived Khartoum as the principal threat to US interests in East Africa. Although the US administration succeeded in isolating and containing Sudan with financial and economic sanctions, it made little headway in ending the country's civil war and did not significantly weaken Khartoum government.
The shift in the global environment in the aftermath of September 11thcatastrophic terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, opened the doors for US and Sudan to engage in a modicum of cooperation. Sudan was sympathetic to the US, as Sudan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Mustafa Osman Ismail spoke by telephone to Secretary of the State, Colin Powell. This was the first high-level contact between the two countries in years. Khartoum condemned the attacks and said it would cooperate with the US on war against terrorism. This gesture led to the softening of the prevailing tension between the two nations. In other fronts, the US Administration began promising incentives to Sudan if the country adheres to reform and seriously engages in peace negotiations. In 2003, Secretary Colin Powell, pledged to lift sanctions against Sudan, provide financial assistance, and remove Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. This package was combined with pressure on Khartoum to end the conflict and exert efforts to stimulate freedom and democracy.
A tide of diplomatic resolution and dialogue echoed in capitals rather than containment and isolationism. These efforts culminated in signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on 9 January 2005. Nonetheless, normalization process between Sudan and the US was once again stalled when the Bush administration made the normalization of diplomatic relations with Sudan conditional upon ending the Darfur crisis. This greatly angered Sudan which saw this as a policy of "shifting the goalposts". The Darfur conflict, which began in February 2003, complicated international attempts to end the country's instability and kept US-Sudan relations tense.
The Obama Administration articulated a new U.S. strategy in Sudan comprised of three core principles: 1) Achieving a definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in Darfur; 2) Implementation of the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA); and 3) Ensuring that Sudan does not provide a safe haven for international terrorists. The U.S. expressed its appreciation for the Government of Sudan for its commitment to hold the southern Sudan referendum timely and the recognition of its outcome, calling for secession. But to the disappointment of Sudan government, the US did not celebrate much the smooth transition to the independence of Southern Sudan State and again moved the goalposts to new obstacle in the process of the normalization of relations, namely conflicts in Southern Kordufan and the Blue Nile states. The disappointment was mixed with a feeling that this was an open project of continued meddling with Sudan affairs.
Ahmed Ibrahim, Speaker of Sudan's Parliament stated that:"We have been promised time and again that once a peace agreement was passed, Sudan would be lifted from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism," Ibrahim says. "But each time we realized that the ceiling was being lifted higher."
The Sudanese demands focused on the need to have its name removed from the list of states Washington considers sponsors of terrorism and to lift economic sanctions.The international community is supposed to play effective role in boosting development in Sudan by writing off foreign debts after achieving peace and ending the civil war. However, pressure exerted by the US upon donors within the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries HIPC initiative obstructed the international community not to exempt Sudan from foreign debts.
Sudan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ali Karti affirmed that Sudan has met its obligations and that the development of relations between the two countries was dependent on the seriousness of the U.S. in fulfilling its obligations. Thus, the question of American foreign policy towards Sudan hangs on the clarifying the real American objectives and interests in Sudan. Once labeled as a regional threat to peace and stability, Sudan is capable of being the center of peacemaking in the troubled Horn of Africa region. Through the years, the country has witnessed remarkable reforms in the fields of human rights, democracy and popular participation, nation-building with regard to regional autonomy and self determination, and peace building. Sudan's untapped wealth and vast natural resources are always available for investment by American companies. These developments and other Sudanese efforts in seeking normal relations with the US were sadly ignored, sidelined and met with rejection and aggression. Twenty years or more of continued hostile American policies makes you simply wonder: What does America want from The Republic of the Sudan??
Photo of the Week
Everybody alive today came from one African country (The Independent) Ariana Baio Khartoum, Jan.1 (Sudanow)-It is well known that all humans alive today can be traced back to a common ancestor but a study may have found where that ancestor originates. Researchers at the University of Oxford’s Big Data Institute mapped the entirety of genetic relationships among humans t...
More-
01 January, 2023
Phone battery killed nine persons, injured twelve
Zalingei, Jan.1 (Sudanow) - A dispute over a phone battery, in Marin Market, Central Darfur, led to the killing of nine persons and injuring of another twelve. The Director of Central Darfur Police, Salah Omar Al-Tayeb told SUNA last Thursday that main reasons behind the events in Zalingei began with a dispute over a phone battery, where one of the citizens stabbed to death. The police official added that the police forces moved to th...
Contact Us
Address: Sudan News Agency (SUNA) Building, Jamhoria Street, Khartoum - Sudan
Mobile:+249 909220011 / +249 912307547