Thursday, November 21, 2024

Sudan Tribune

Plural news and views on Sudan

Moral clarity beats clarity in U.S. Sudan policy

By Nino Saviano

August 13, 2008 — The Bush administration’s Sudan policy is aloof, disengaged, and ambiguous. It ignores the realities on the ground – the peacekeeping efforts in Darfur, the progress toward peace in all of Sudan, and any potential dangerous security ramifications due to failure.

On July 31, the United States abstained from voting on a U.N. Security Council resolution approving another year of peacekeeping in Darfur. The resolution contained language, opposed by the U.S., noting a request by the African Union (AU) to freeze prosecution of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court.

While the Bush administration abstention may be interpreted as a hands-off, leave-it-to-the-next-president approach, it is nevertheless a reflection of American ambivalence in dealing with Sudan and, not less, the ICC.

In March of 2005 the United States abstained, after threatening veto, from the Security Council resolution that originally referred Darfur to the ICC. That opposition was due to its hostility toward the criminal court. Today’s abstention, in the words of Deputy U.S. Representative to the UN Alejandro Wolff, is based on the principle of “moral clarity” – that is, moral clarity in pursuing justice for crimes of genocide.

Policy inconsistencies toward Sudan are not a U.S. characteristic alone. Those who mainly supported the Darfur investigation three years ago, now would like to see the process freeze – hence the language in the latest Darfur resolution. Thus, today we have nothing more than a dichotomous approach to Sudan – criminal persecution on one hand, and peace and reconciliation on the other.

But such approach is now showing its inherent contradictions.

In 2005, less than three months after the Security Council resolution, Sudan’s key Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed with the full support of the United States and other Security Council members. Because of that agreement, the overall political conditions in Sudan have been improving dramatically and the country finally appears ready to hold national elections in 2009.

All of the major political parties and players have been setting their sight on free and fair national elections. The SPLM, the main opposition group from south Sudan, as well as al-Bashir’s National Congress Party, have recently been making extraordinary and unprecedented reconciliatory moves supporting the current Government of National Unity and the CPA.

On the same day of the ICC criminal filing on July 14, and just days after the third anniversary of the CPA, the Sudanese parliament finally passed the National Elections Act. The Act constitutes an indispensable piece of legislation setting the framework for next year’s elections and epitomizes weeks of compromising among government and key opposition groups.

But Sudan is a country where centrifugal forces make democratic progress extremely complicated. Any further ICC actions may likely embolden opposition elements on the fringe of the political process. The result could be both a blow to the peace process and a further solidification of President al-Bashir’s regime.

The Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), a main opposition group operating in Darfur, welcomed the criminal indictment of al-Bashir. The SLM also hailed recent statements made by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni – that he does not condemn the indictment by the ICC and that Africans are the ones to blame for not investigating Darfur crimes.

Alignment of Sudan’s internal opposition groups with neighboring governments or other groups outside of the country’s borders is a worrisome development. It is reminiscent of the kind of developments that all too often have led to intra-state and inter-state conflict in Africa.

A strong sense of clarity and determination in the U.S. policy on Sudan is badly needed, along with the re-establishment of the primacy of the political process at the international level.

The complexities and precariousness of Sudan make it a political problem, not a legal case. The United States must find common ground with China, Russia, the AU and others with interest in the region in order to avoid another humanitarian catastrophe for the people of Darfur, Sudan and the region.

The achievement of justice is an absolute. Its timing is a relative.

By Nino Saviano is a political strategist and an international campaign adviser. He can be reached at [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *