Democrat’s gain in US elections could be South Sudan’s and Darfur’s loss
By John A. Akec*
September 16, 2006 — As a democrat and socialist by inclination, you may think I was going to dance at the news of the recent control of both the Senate and House of Representatives by Democratic majority following the US mid-term elections on November 7, 2006. Nothing could be further from truth. In fact, I am very concerned that the good days of handshake by Sudan opposition leaders with the US president in the Oval Office could soon be numbered.
I have every good reason to mourn the Republican loss in recent mid-term elections. I like their decisive, black-and-white approach to issues. Only a Republican administration could have appointed Sudan US peace Envoy (Senator John Danforth), pass a stronger version of Sudan Peace Act, pressure SPLM and the government of Sudan to conclude Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Kenya in January 2005, call Darfur war a genocide, and push for AU and UN intervention in Darfur.
In contrast, countless fellow South Sudanese, author included, witnessed with absolute dismay how our people suffered in wilderness of Clinton era. The Democratic administration under President Bill Clinton maintained a hand-off approach to Sudan civil war. During that period, Khartoum became the global centre for Islamic fundamentalism, and a training camp for terrorists – all targeting American foreign policy and interests, and declaring Jihad war on marginalized people of Sudan in the South, East, and West. Khartoum’s contempt of the US was manifested in hosting of Osama Bin Laden between 1991 and 1996, playing a role in first attempt to blow up World Trade Centre in New York in February 1993, the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (a committed US ally in the region) in Addis Ababa on June 25 1995, and the bombing of US embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar Al Salaam (Tanzania) in June 1998.
As far as the problem of war in Sudan was concerned, the US interest to get involved in ending the war under Democrats did not go further than setting up expert testimonies and hearings within subcommittees for East African Affairs in the State Department. Sudan civil war was never an issue that concerned the Congress to merit a serious debate on the floor of any of two chambers. The efforts by Carter Centre for Peace to mediate between Sudan warring parties were neither effective nor influential to commit the Clinton administration to play a more active role to end genocide in Southern Sudan and bring about a lasting peace.
Vain threats and feeble attempts to frighten Khartoum regime with economic sanctions and missile strike on Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in August 1998 as a retaliation for Sudan’s role in the bombing of US embassies did nothing but emboldened the Nationalist Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum to adopt a more hostile and extreme anti-western and anti-American posture, and to invite Bin Laden to pitch his training tents for his followers outside Sudan capital, Khartoum. Moreover Bin Laden was able as to fund commercial enterprises in Sudan that helped greatly to boost his financial muscle that allowed him to expand his Al Qaeda organisation.
Madeleine Albright, who served as the Secretary of State under president Bill Clinton was very reluctant to commit America to bring peace in Sudan. She was famously quoted saying: “Sudan war is not viable.” It goes without saying that Secretary Albright did make a number of controversial statements, not just on Sudan political problems, but on many international issues, some of which she later came to regret and describe as “stupid.” This was Albright’s own word, not this author’s.
The lack of interest to get involved to end African ethnically fuelled wars was in stark contrast to the more active role played by the Clinton administration to intervene alongside NATO in ethnic wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina that pitted Muslim Bosniaks and Croats against Christian Orthodox Serbs between 1992 and 1995. The US took a similar stand in war between Serbs and Albanian Muslims in Kosovo between 1996 and 1999. All the efforts eventually led to the break up of Yugoslavia and creation of new independent states.
The role of the US under President Bill Clinton to end genocide against Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, the US involvement to end sectarian violence in Northern Island (the ancestral home of president Clinton) that resulted in signing of Good Friday Agreement in Belfast on April 10, 1998; and his lack of interest to aid the repressed Africans in Sudan are hard to reconcile. Nowhere is this lack of will to get American hand dirty in Africa apparent than when Clinton ordered withdrawal of US forces in Somalia when 18 US soldiers were killed in an ambush by Somali warlord in October 1993, leaving the country to degenerate into anarchy. Compare that to the number of American servicemen dying in Iraq since 2005 while the US forces continue keep security in that challenging country. What conclusion do you come up with? Was it because Somalia was not viable? Or is it that Bush is made of a different metal? Tell me if you have a reasonable explanation. Tough!
As a youngster, I grew to view Western conservative governments of all flavours with suspicion and regarded them as anti-immigration, anti-social justice, and anti-black. I was attracted to Western socialist parties because, in theory, they stood for social justice, equal opportunity for all, equitable distribution of national wealth, and global economic fairness. After living in the West for decade and a half, I have seen little evidence to believe that this always the case. Whether in the government, or outside the government, socialist ideals seem to make little difference, if any, when it comes to the kind of geopolitics that has continued to discriminate against Africa. African problems seem to be the last thing on everyone’s mind. Democrats too, are guilty, and very guilty.
The United Nations, being the hotchpotch of sovereign states has been often been bogged down in debilitating divisions amongst its members to be able to intervene in timely fashion to help the repressed groups within states. What goes in the UN is basically that of “you scratch my back, and I will scratch yours. UN has proved not to be an effective world policeman and a restorer of stolen rights.
Furthermore, “old” Europe is addicted to constructive engagement that maintains the status quo – good or bad. In Africa, it is open secret that there is a unanimous consensus that colonial boundaries between sovereign states must be respected at any cost. They must be preserved like Catholic marriages – where divorce is not an option under any circumstances. That whatever evil that goes on within those ‘sovereign states’ it ought not be anyone’s business.
All above has left a great gap in the world for a powerful and just arbiter to correct the sins of grave injustices such as cruelty of man to man. It therefore begs a huge moral question whether or not America as the sole superpower should intervene and settle issues of injustice or break a political stalemate such as Sudan wars. The Republicans administration under president George W. Bush Jr. seems to have done just that. Bush vowed that he was going to fight alongside those who wanted to be free. He used American might to intervene in Iraq. Like the biblical good Samaritan, George W. Bush promised during his first inauguration speech that he would not pass by if he sees a victim of injustice fallen by the way side.
And true to his word, President George W. Bush tried his very best to do the right thing and paid the high political price. He bullied the strong to give to the weak. By sending more Democrats to the Congress, America is signalling to Bush administration to pull out of Iraq and to slow down his interventionist policies elsewhere.
It is worth reminding ourselves that United States Congress is comprised of two chambers: the House of Representatives, made up of 435 elected members, and the Senate formed of 100 elected senators. All directly elected. As the result of recent elections, Democrats now control a majority of 229 seats, while the Republicans control 196 seats. In the Senate, Democrats have 51 seats, and the Republicans hold 49. This seems like a small difference, but it is very significant.
As prime legislative body, a Democrats controlled Congress has powers to pass new law or block new bills from being passed into law. It also has powers to block presidential decisions on home affairs and can initiate investigation or probe into previous decisions by the White House as it sees fit. Foreign policy is still largely the responsibility of the president and the State Department. The president is also empowered to veto certain decisions against Congress’ will. Hence, all is not lost. It is not as if president George W. Bush, the liberator of people of Iraq, South Sudan, and Darfur, is dead and gone. But, it does mean that our liberator is now highly constrained in what he can or cannot do. It also does mean South Sudanese and people of Darfur will now face very uncertain future and should strive to make the most of Bush’s commitment and sympathy while he is still around.
As a democratic country that America is, people’s decisions must be respected. The American people have spoken: no more freebies for the oppressed and marginalized people of the world. Let us therefore accept their decision ungrudgingly. At the same time, let us be ready to face the law of unintended consequences, be it good or bad.
* Dr John Akec is a political analyst based in London . He is also the editor of a blog where he posts articles and comments about the Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected]. To view this article and past works by the author, follow the link to author’s blog: http://johnakecsouthsudan.blogspot.com/