What is the U.S. Policy on Sudan?

By Bill Andress*

Nov 24, 2005 — Recent actions by the United States State Department leave
Americans, Sudanese and the International Community wondering,
“What is the U.S. Policy on Sudan?” Let’s examine some of the
flip-flops that form the basis for that well-deserved confusion.

Last year the United States Congress, the President and the
Secretary of State, with solid evidence for support, all
publicly excoriated the Government of Sudan for genocide in
Darfur. In November of this year Deputy Secretary of State
Robert Zoellick delivered a speech at the University of Khartoum
in which he referred to Darfur saying, “Then violence by proxy
spiraled to a new level of bloodiness when the Janjaweed were
set loose on innocents. Sudan descended into crimes against
humanity and genocide, for which there must be accountability.”

Then, inexplicably, although no one believes that significant
improvement has occurred, the State Department removed Sudan
from the list of the worst offenders of human rights.

Incredibly and in the face of vast, reliable evidence to the
contrary, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African
Affairs Michael Ranneberger, suggesting that the African Union
was effectively stopping the genocide, recently said, “….You
fly over Darfur, almost all you see, thousands of villages fully
populated, farming going on, and everything else. So, it’s
because of the presence of these African Union forces.”

What could be the point of such an obviously, erroneous
statement on the part of Ambassador Ranneberger who certainly is
well informed enough to know that these are inaccurate
statements? This is not the time to ease off and put our heads
in the sand. Denial of what is happening to the Sudanese does
not make it less real.

During a November visit to Darfur, Zoellick, angered by
government intrusion into what was to have been a private
briefing said, “I want to hear a straight story…and I can’t
trust your government!” He is right; we cannot trust the
Government of Sudan! With that in mind, it is confusing that
we:

– Granted a waiver to the Khartoum regime to hire a lobbyist to
advance its own causes with our Congress; our people; and our
Executive branch on behalf of a government that we cannot trust;

– Flew Sudan’s intelligence chief to Washington for “talks”
despite the fact that he has been implicated in the Darfur
genocide;

– Dispatched a new charge d’affaires to Sudan which has not had
a US ambassador since 1997; and

– Removed Sudan from the list of those governments who are the
worst offenders of human rights!

Our actions smack of inconsistency at best and appeasement at
worst when firmness clearly is required. Do we understand the
Government of Sudan less than Sheikh Ali of the rebel Eastern
Front, who said, “We’ve learned the lessons of Darfur. This
government listens only to people who carry guns”?

Has the new U.S. diplomatic stance toward Sudan become a cover
for Khartoum’s generals for the genocide in Darfur? Has
diplomacy become intellectual and moral dishonesty? Are we
competent? Perhaps we should judge our policy by what we see
happening. That would imply that our policy is:

– Continued massive humanitarian aid funding,
– Very strong words in the United Nations and by President Bush
opposing the genocide, but without action, and
? Unwillingness to honestly face and respond to genocide in
Darfur.

If the United States government does not see clearly that it
takes meaningful pressure to get the attention of those
responsible for committing genocide in Sudan, at least some
citizens of our country are willing to take a stand by managing
their investments so that they are not also complicit.

Some People of this Nation See Things More Clearly

Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel
said, “How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention?
How can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person,
whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And
above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent?”

Signifying that they are paying attention and outraged and
demonstrating their unwillingness to allow ethnically-targeted
human destruction (G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E) to proceed essentially
unchecked, several universities and state governments have moved
forward to do their part to impose their own economic sanctions.

Harvard and Stanford universities and the states of Illinois,
New Jersey and Oregon have divested from companies doing
business in Sudan. Dartmouth College has voted to avoid
investment in six companies closely tied to the Sudanese
government. An investment committee of the University of
California’s Board of Regents has voted to divest holdings from
four companies which do business in Sudan. At least a dozen
other state legislatures are actively considering divestment.

*Bill Andress,
Moderator, Sudan Advocacy Action Forum
Lexington, SC USA. Email
[email protected]