Will the US top diplomat in Sudan be expelled?
By Wasil Ali
January 27, 2008 (WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Chargé d’affaires in Khartoum Alberto Fernandez, could not have picked a worst time to criticize the Sudanese government.
At a time when stiffened US sanctions against Sudan enforced last May are starting to hurt a booming economy with no realistic prospect of lifting them, officials in Khartoum appear poised or even proactively seeking a confrontation with Washington.
Also cables from the Sudanese embassy in Washington give little encouragement for Khartoum. The embassy is struggling to cope with the financial restrictions as well as the political isolation imposed on it.
The Sudanese government alleges that Washington confiscated $10 million of its assets to pay the families of U.S. sailors killed in the bombing of an American naval destroyer seven years ago in Yemen.
Perhaps the only thing preventing a complete breakdown in relations between the two countries is mysterious intelligence cooperation which “helped avert devastating measures [by US administration]” according to Salah Gosh the head of Sudan’s National Security and Intelligence Service.
Khartoum is also getting nervous at the appointment of a new US special envoy believed to be a ‘hardliner’ by Sudanese officials, more so than his predecessor Andrew Natsios.
So now the Sudanese government has started taking a new approach best described as “let’s make life hard for them too”.
The early fruit of this policy was for Sudan to block containers for the US embassy and demand payment of custom fees contrary to the norms of diplomatic privileges. Last year the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir resolved a similar issue by granting a special exception. However this time he does not appear to be so generous.
US officials have failed to convince Sudan to admit the containers needed for the new embassy complex. They also stood firm on their position which is that they will not pay for admitting them creating a deadlock with no end in sight.
So what does Sudan wants? A complete overhaul of US policies towards Sudan which includes lifting of sanctions, upgrading diplomatic ties and ceasing pressure on the issue of Darfur.
“We will not offer free concessions” said Mustafa Ismail, Sudanese President’s adviser and senior National Congress Party (NCP) official after meeting with Fernandez.
“Every concession in our end should be met with a similar concession from the US side” he added.
Then there were the statements by Fernandez last week. It almost seemed like the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Fernandez told Reuters in an interview that a political crisis over stalled implementation of Sudan’s north-south peace deal and other unfulfilled commitments would directly affect Darfur peace talks due in the coming months.
The Arabic fluent diplomat also said that he was still concerned at the lack of implementation of the peace deal which ended Africa’s longest war in Sudan’s south. He also voiced skepticism that the presidency will resolve the thorny issue of Abyei after years of political wrangling between the North and South.
Though the remarks by Fernandez demonstrate nothing out of the ordinary as far as US policy in Sudan, officials in Khartoum had a different point of view.
The Sudanese foreign ministry summoned Fernandez and told him to “stop meddling in internal affairs” and that his government’s policy so far does not serve the bilateral relations and listed a whole number of issues ranging from sanctions to the choices of US special envoys.
Also the foreign ministry brought up two issues unrelated to the row. They told Fernandez that the appointment of Musa Hilal a notorious Janjaweed leader to a government post is a matter of sovereignty. They also told him that his government needs to release Sudanese inmates at Guantanamo Bay.
Fernandez was probably taken aback by such an overwhelming response from Sudan on his statements. His only line of defense per Sudan’s news agency (SUNA) was to say that he was misquoted by Reuter’s reporter Opheera Mcdoom.
Yet it is highly unlikely that Fernandez was misquoted given the fact that the interview was taped and that the US embassy did not demand a retraction or a correction from Reuters.
A spokesman for the US embassy in Khartoum refused to comment on the issue of misquotation when contacted by Sudan Tribune. Clearly the US embassy is trying to contain the damage caused by the statements.
But what is the new about this latest escalation between Washington and Khartoum? This is the first time that Sudan talks about expelling Fernandez.
Ali Al-Sadig spokesperson of Sudan’s foreign ministry hinted to Al-Sudani daily that his government is prepared to expel the US diplomat not just over his remarks, but in retaliation to restrictions imposed on its embassy in Washington.
For now Fernandez will be under the microscope of Khartoum and he is likely to lay low until things cool down. The US needs no distractions at a time when it is preparing for a new push on Darfur headed by the new special envoy Richard Williamson.
(ST)