US special envoy to Sudan starts out his mission on the wrong foot

By Wasil Ali*

April 19, 2008 — Two years ago I wrote an article questioning the seriousness of the US administration to punish the Sudanese regime for its atrocities in Darfur. The point that I tried to make back then that Washington’s policy towards Sudan are not as obvious as most people would think. All the US administration moves on Sudan, including sanctions, appeared extremely cautious and unwilling to go far enough. A good example would be the US reluctance to punish any senior member of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP). The only exception would be the war crime suspect Ahmed Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

But in my opinion even the sanctioning of Haroun was an easier and less costly target for the US since he is practically a “dead” man destined to end in The Hague sooner or later. We also must remember that the US objected in April 2006 on the inclusion of senior regime members on UN sanctions list. Of course the US mission headed by John Bolton at the time said they did so for reasons relating to the internal workings of their government agencies which no one found very convincing. The only truth I deduced from Bolton’s statements that there are indeed some within the US administration who want to avoid confrontation with Sudan at all costs. It all makes sense when we remember Sudan’s spy Chief Salah Gosh statements in which he said that cooperation with CIA “prevented US destructive backlash”.

The New York Times (NYT) article published last week pretty much revealed the culmination of incremental moves by Washington towards normalization with Khartoum. If the report is indeed true then it is clear that the Bush administration has learned nothing from their experiences with Sudan’s regime. Moreover it shows and hasty desire to get Darfur off their plate at any cost using a flawed approach that rewards Khartoum for reneging on every single agreement they signed.

The documents obtained by NYT say that the US promised to normalize ties with Sudan in return for certain things including the acceptance of Thai and Nepalese troops in the UNAMID force. This discussion of this item in itself is a severe blow to the credibility of the US, UN and the world community. Sudan has accepted UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1769 for hybrid force that is predominantly and not exclusively African in composition. Al-Bashir also told the UNSC visiting members last June that he accepted 1769 unconditionally without a caveat of only African troops. However he backpedaled and said he will not accept any non-African troops. Therefore compliance by Khartoum is not optional nor should they be rewarded for complying with a weak resolution tailored to their taste. And yet Khartoum is still dragging its feet, thanks to the protection bestowed upon them by Beijing.

Another part of the US ‘incentives’ is for Sudan to “speed up visas for humanitarian workers and allow private aid organizations to work in Darfur”. Sudan has already signed an agreement with UN on March 28, 2007 in which it pledged to “support, protect and facilitate all humanitarian operations” including the visa issuance to aid workers. Yet the US wants another commitment from Sudan on something that was supposed to be fully implemented?

And even if Sudan was to implement all what the US asked for, what guarantees that Sudan will not place new obstacles to slow down progress of peace efforts in Darfur? This is Khartoum’s endless game. Sign an agreement then not honor it and attempt to renegotiate or nullify some parts of it. In the interim the Sudanese government enjoys conducting excessive exchanges of letters and envoys that lead to the same results; nothing except buying more time and playing on lack of international resolve.

And even if we put aside all the above mentioned facts the fundamental fact remains that the ruling NCP does not even recognize Darfur as a humanitarian tragedy. All Sudanese NCP government officials with no exception downplay the extent of the crisis. The Sudanese president in particular is in denial that his own people are killed, tortured and raped by his army. Yet he hangs on to “sovereignty” as an excuse to push off world intervention while the bloodshed continues.

The US envoy Richard Williamson must remember that the head of the Sudanese delegation he was negotiating with in Rome is Nafi Ali Nafi. If we placed the fact that the latter is personally responsible for brutally torturing political opponents in the 90’s, it is also him that launched an attack on US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last February telling her “to lick her elbow if she thinks that Khartoum will kneel down to her conditions and accept pressure from her or the international community”. Moreover in March Nafi vowed that the military campaign in Darfur will continue no mater what. “We have no problem fighting those who fight us. The UN Security Council will not stop us even if the whole world screams” Nafi was quoted as saying last month.

Williamson had said in the UN headquarters last month that he told the Sudanese president that he is “not interested in re-litigating the past”. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that Sudan is no longer obligated to implement agreements it signed and pledges it made? What is the fate of all the UNSC resolutions issued that Sudan has refused to abide with? Resolution 1556 calling for disarmament of Janjaweed; Resolution 1591 calling for arms embargo and military flight ban over Darfur; Resolution 1593 calling on Sudan to cooperate fully with ICC; Resolution 1672 imposing financial sanctions and travel ban on 4 Sudanese including the notorious Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal recently appointed in the cabinet. Is complying with these resolutions part of the negotiations or are they now things of the past?

As it stands now the US envoy is walking down the same road of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The latter pretty much gave Sudan too many concessions hoping to get something in return but Alas. The regime in Khartoum only understands the language of force. This is the only way to “incentivize” them as recent history has showed us. It was the US envoy who said in the past that the Sudanese regime are “thugs will act like thugs as long as they are allowed to do so”.

The US administration wants some material progress on the Darfur crisis before the November presidential elections. However this goal should not justify too many concessions to Khartoum in return for very little. The Sudanese regime is desperate to normalize ties with US and to have economic sanctions lifted. The best way is to make them earn it by implementing what they previously agreed to as well as UNSC resolutions. Only then should any talk of normalizing ties be on the table.

* The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]