Feature: US says Sudan looking for way out on Darfur force
By Wasil Ali
April 29, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — “Sudan is in a corner and they are looking for the way out”. This is how this State Department official started off his conversation with me on the Darfur crisis. The official who spoke to Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity said that given the pressure from the international community including China, Sudan’s closest ally, president al-Bashir will ultimately have no option but to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur. The official likened Bashir’s rejection of the UN force to his position during the North-South peace talk in 2003 when he rejected a draft framework presented by mediators saying they can “soak it in water and drink it”. The Sudanese president was later forced to accept a stricter version of the proposal under pressure.
The official strongly rejected the notion that the Bush administration is accommodating Khartoum and described their position as the least “conceding” compared to other countries on the Darfur crisis. He also criticized the “unrealistic” suggestions by some US lawmakers and think-tank groups on how to force Sudan to accept UN peacekeepers in Darfur.
The official also denied that the US is planning to arm the Southern Sudan army as part of the proposed ‘Plan B’ to sanction Khartoum. He also signaled a growing impatience with the splintering of rebel groups saying it is about time they unite at least politically so that negotiations can resume.
COMMAND AND CONTROL OF AU-UN HYBRID FORCE
Sudan has insisted that any forces in Darfur under the terms of the Addis Ababa communiqué will be under African Union command. Andrew Natsios, President Bush’s Special Envoy to Sudan, told the senate committee on foreign relations that the US insisted that the Addis Ababa communiqué clearly states that the AU-UN hybrid force will be under UN command and control. However at a press conference in Khartoum the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte appeared to have hinted to a change in the US position on this issue. Negroponte said the Darfur peacekeeping force should have a chain of command that “conforms to U.N. standards and practices” as opposed to insisting on the UN command.
The State department official told Sudan Tribune that no change of position was suggested by Negroponte and it was merely a “matter of wording”. He went on to explain by saying that the hybrid force has a military component and a political one. The latter will be run by a representative reporting to both the AU & the UN. However the military component of the force will be led by one commander reporting to New York. He added that it was the AU who said that they do not have the command structure that will enable them to lead a 20,000 strong peacekeepers force.
RESOLUTION 1706 VS. THE ADDIS ABABA COMMUNIQUÉ
During the first meeting of Natsios with Bush following his appointment as Sudan’s special envoy, the US president spoke of a “U.N. force of peacekeepers to protect the innocent people” as outlined in resolution 1706 adopted by the UN Security Council on August 2006. However on their second meeting after Natsios’s trip to Khartoum, Bush called for an “effective peacekeeping force” dropping its characterization as a UN force. This eventually led to the plan proposed by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan known as the AU-UN hybrid force and Sudan has agreed to it in the Addis Ababa meeting attended by the UN, AU, Arab League and the major powers including the US. Ever since that agreement, Sudan has boasted that it was able to overcome resolution 1706 in a major defeat to the “colonial powers of the West”.
However the US does not see it this way. “Sudan hates resolution 1706” the official said. According to him the main difference between resolution 1706 and the Addis Ababa agreement is that it emphasizes the African component of the force to make it more appealing to Khartoum. In other words it is a different packaging for the same plan. But some have said that the tripartite commission created by the Addis Ababa agreement gives Khartoum a veto power on the composition and the size of the force. The official firmly rejected this view saying that the agreement has provided for the creation of an effective peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. According to him this is the minimum acceptable to the US. When asked about Sudan’s rejection of non-African troops in Darfur he said that the US strongly urges contributions from African nations but he stressed that if it falls short from what is needed then they will have to look outside the continent. He added that Sudan has agreed to this condition in Addis Ababa.
REGIME CHANGE IN SUDAN?
John Bolton, the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, was quoted as saying that it may be time to contemplate a regime change in Sudan. By that he meant getting rid of the National Congress Party (NCP) component of the government who are practically the only ones in Sudan to object to international peacekeepers in Darfur. Long before that the Sudanese government has consistently accused Washington of trying to topple their regime.
The official wondered “How are we going to do that?” describing the US policy as supportive of a democratic transition in Sudan per the Comprehensive Peace agreement (CPA) of 2005. He noted that it was the US who told the Darfur rebels to stop trying to remove the Sudanese regime. He then raised the question “If there was to be a coup in Khartoum who would it be carried by? It will not be the SPLA, the “Mu’arada” (Northern Opposition Parties) or the Darfur rebels. It will probably be a hardliner”. “Our agenda on Sudan is purely humanitarian” he added.
REBEL GROUPS AND DPA
I asked the official on the Darfur Peace agreement (DPA) given the fact it is currently hardly worth the ink it was written on. The Sudanese government insists that no changes will be made to the DPA, contrary to the wishes of the rebel groups. The US official told Sudan Tribune that the DPA is a good agreement and that so much effort was made in Abuja to accommodate the demands of the rebel groups. The official, who was present at the Abuja talks, said that Abdel Wahid Nur leader of Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) has accepted the terms of the DPA but changed his mind the very last minute.
The official disclosed that Khalil Ibrahim, head of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), was bringing up issues at the Abuja talks that were irrelevant to the Darfur crisis. He declined to confirm if this is why the US administration is planning to sanction him per a recent Washington Post article. However he mentioned that Ibrahim’s agenda is that of Hassan Turabi, the head of the Popular Congress Party and an ex-ally of President Bashir. He elaborated by saying that it is clear to the US administration that Ibrahim is focused on Khartoum and not on the crisis of his people in Darfur.
In any case the official made it clear that the DPA should not be changed but rather “enhanced” to incorporate the rebel demands, particularly on the issue of compensation, but that starting again from scratch on a new agreement is “not acceptable”.
DOMESTIC PRESSURE IN THE US
“The issue of Darfur is not black or white as some people in the US think it is; it is not African tribes against Arab tribes” the official said, criticizing the misunderstandings regarding the Darfur conflict in the US. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, along with other US lawmakers called for military action against Sudan. The State Department official blasted these calls by saying “Do they expect us to invade a Muslim country?. He said that no country will be willing to send peacekeepers to Darfur without the consent of Khartoum even though resolution 1706 does not require Sudan’s approval of such a force. He underlined the importance of working with the Sudanese government to get the force on the ground.
US – SUDANESE RELATIONS
I was curious as to whether there are some improvements in the US-Sudanese relationship recently given that the Sudanese president allowed 40 containers containing material for the new US embassy in Khartoum to enter without the regular custom duties. Al-Bashir also told NBC that the intelligence cooperation with the US will continue. I asked the official why Khartoum will cooperate with Washington on counter-terrorism given the strong rhetoric exchanged between the two capitals.
“The US-Sudanese relationship is in its worst phases since the bombing of the Shifaa [pharmaceutical] factory in 1998” the official said. However the cooperation with Sudan on counter-terrorism will continue. Notwithstanding this, the US has not rewarded Sudan by removing it from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.
He added that the Washington told Khartoum it is in their interest to allow these containers to enter the country or else “it will take another 10 years to build the new embassy” and will continue the inconvenience for the residents of the area surrounding the current location of the US embassy in Khartoum.
SANCTIONS AND PLAN B
I questioned the official as to why the US is avoiding sanctioning senior Sudanese officials either unilaterally or through the UN Security Council. A year ago the US objected to a list of senior Sudanese officials to sanction submitted by the UK. The US so far has not sanctioned any member of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) or even the Sudanese president who is blocking the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur.
“We don’t run down the street to Treasury and ask them to sanction individuals” he said. Unlike Europe, the US has to meet a threshold before they can sanction an individual. Any error in these procedures may create potential lawsuits from financial institutions.
Whether he expects that the US will sanction other Sudanese officials he smiled and said “Wait and see”.
Asked about reports that the US intends to arm the Southern Sudan army as part of the proposed Plan ‘B’ he said there was a misunderstanding in this regard. Upgrading the capabilities of the Southern Sudan army was part of the North-South peace agreement signed in 2005, he said. The Sudanese government has refused to fund the Southern army from the federal budget so a compromise was reached that will allow the South to receive military assistance from abroad, and the US is working in that context.
(ST)