US reluctant to apply too much pressure on Sudan: Expert
By Wasil Ali
November 26, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — The US administration is unwilling to put enough pressure on Sudan fearing that it may lead to the creation of a Somalia-style scenario, according to a leading expert in African affairs.
“It all comes down to counterterrorism and Washington’s strategy in the war on terrorism” he added.
The intelligence cooperation between the US and Sudan was publicly exposed in 2005 when the Los Angeles Times disclosed that the CIA sent a jet in April 2005 to Khartoum to ferry Salah Gosh, head of Sudan’s National Security and Intelligence Service, into Washington for meetings on nabbing terror suspects in East Africa.
The report caused outcry among human rights groups in the US who allege that Gosh has orchestrated human right abuses in the war ravaged region of Darfur. The widespread criticism forced the US administration to subsequently deny Gosh entry to seek medical treatment for heart condition.
The same newspaper revealed in June that Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq despite the strained relations with Washington over the Darfur crisis.
International experts estimate 200,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict, which Washington calls genocide a term European governments are reluctant to use
Thomas-Jensen said that the US administration fears that revealing evidence against senior Sudanese official may risk drowning the country into a civil war similar to Somalia.
“The memory of Somalia haunts policy makers in Washington” he added.
But it is not just the anarchy concerns that drive Washington’s policy on Khartoum. According to Thomas-Jensen the US administration is not willing to lose some Sudanese officials even if they were complicit in the Darfur crimes.
“Salah Gosh is a very valuable person to Washington” he said.
The Africa policy expert said that he does not foresee any change in US policy anytime soon. He said that despite the US playing a leading role on Sudan, their actions have not matched up with their statements.
“At one point State department officials said that they did not hand over the evidence they possessed on Darfur war crimes suspects to the International Criminal Court (ICC) because they received no request from them [ICC]“.
Last May the US president George Bush ordered stiffened sanctions on Sudan that will bar 31 companies controlled by the government from doing business in the U.S. financial system as well as sanctions on four Sudanese individuals, including two senior Sudanese officials and a rebel leader suspected of involvement in the Darfur violence.
However Thomas-Jensen does not think that sanctions are strong enough despite president’s Bush’s willingness to force Khartoum for a change in behavior.
“When the US agencies meet in one room to determine the ways they can pressure Khartoum, every one of them has a reason to hold back tough measures. It will take a personal intervention from Bush if they are to formulate a tough course of action against Khartoum” he added.
Last April Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post mentioned that Bush rejected an initial draft of sanctions against Sudan presented by various governmental agencies. According to Diehl “Bush’s anger rocked the Oval Office” and demanded that his special envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios and national security advisor “come up with something stronger”.
Thomas-Jensen also suggested that disagreements between Andrew Natsios, US presidential Envoy to Sudan and the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer, are negatively impacting US policy.
He further warned that the US administration should not assume that there are any moderates within Sudan’s National Congress Party (NCP).
“There are no moderate figures within the NCP. There are simply those who are willing to give concessions in order to retain their power and control over all of Sudan” he added.
(ST)
Hisham Ali Ahmed
US reluctant to apply too much pressure on Sudan: Expert
No controversy over the subordination of the “Abyei” between North and South, in the dispute over the withdrawal of the forces of the Sudanese army from areas south and oil, in the dispute over the right of southerners (only without the participation of the North) in the appointment of their ministers in the federal government or not, is a source of the recent crisis between the Khartoum and the south government, which led the former southern rebels (SPLM) to “freeze” the participation withdrawn 19 ministers and advisers and Minister of State in the southern federal government on 11 October 2007!!.
All these differences – and many others – are raised since the signing of a peace agreement in Naivasha South January 2005, and there are committees and meetings are ongoing to resolve them, as it is not true that the North Only Defaulters in the implementation of the peace agreement, but true that most Southerners also failing, but and more inclined – through many positions allocated – at times unity option with the North through the Permanent media incitement against Khartoum in the North and encourage separatism in the southern end of the transitional period in 2011, but there are those who say that the separation has become a reality and is being prevented attempts! .
More seriously, they receive–Southerners unusual encouragement of the United States of America – in its wider dissemination of creative chaos across the dividing Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon and Somalia-the separation, so we can say that peace envoy (!) American responsible for the file in the State Department Sudan Roger Winter , played a prominent role in promoting the extremist trend within the “popular movement” to the escalation against the Khartoum government crisis and pressure to freeze work Ministers south.
International Aurora
Such a stupid reason…
Read my essay on why the US should apply more pressure on the Sudanese government, and how they should do it (the link is below).
If the US cares about democracy and human rights, we must realize that the Sudanese government cannot be our ally. We are hypocrites in the eyes of the world.