How 9-11 reshapes US-Sudan relation

By Steve Paterno

September 11, 2010 — As Americans commemorate the 9th anniversary of 9-11, the rest of the world could not help, but to wonder how that tragic single day event, marked by a coordinated terrorist attacks in US soil, had forever changed US foreign policy. Sudan is among the countries, which are greatly affected by US change of foreign policies, following 9-11. Prior to 9-11, the Sudanese Islamic regime in Khartoum played host to the mastermind behind 9-11, Osama Bin-Ladin who is a leader of Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Since then, the US designated the regime as a State- Sponsor-Terrorism. The regime also drew fury from the American religious groups, human rights organizations as well as general American public, because the regime waged war of Jihad against the Christians and animist in Southern part of the country and carrying out genocide in Darfur region of the west.

By 2001, President George W. Bush, a religiously compassionate man with a morale mission to the entire world dedicated his White House to stop the persecutions in Sudan by Islamic forces. All the American Christian and human rights groups rallied behind the President. The timing seems to have been perfect for President Bush to project and crusade his fundamental morale views around the world. With respect to Sudan , President Bush declared that his administration was to “promote a lasting, just peace; human rights; and freedom from persecution for the people of Sudan .”
However, right after 9-11, things completely changed. The Islamic regime in Khartoum, which had enemies all over America , luckily found a powerful ally within US government, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This was the beginning of the dichotomy within US government with respect to its policies toward Sudan that to date has serious implications.

In its part, the Islamic regime in Khartoum played its role very well. It agreed to sign a US brokered peace deal with the Southern base, SPLM/A. The calculation was that, the effort to agreeing in a peaceful settlement with the South, would ease the tension with US. The regime even went further to collaborate with the CIA on the broader global war on terrorism. The CIA immediately flew the Khartoum spy chief, Salah Gosh, a man with the blood of innocent Sudanese lives in his hands, to Langley for debriefing. The collaboration between Khartoum and American top spy agency seems to have developed extensively to include actual training, equipment supplies, and other strategic requirements.

Now, whether the relationship between the CIA and Khartoum is providing favorable results, particularly on war against global terrorism, is a subject open for speculations. Given the secretive nature of the CIA, the general public will not be in position to exactly know as to what extend the cooperation resulted into desired outcome in maintaining US interest. Nonetheless, what is obvious though is that the contradictory US stand in Sudan cripples its influence to affect real changes in that country. This is clearly evidence in the inability of both US administrations of Bush and that of President Barack Obama in dealing with Sudan .

Although President Bush can be credited with brokering the South-North peace deal, his administration never leveraged and pressured Khartoum during the implementation period. Consequently, many of the important provisions of that agreement remain unimplemented. In Darfur, President Bush went ahead and honestly declared that Khartoum is committing genocide there, however, the Bush administration failed to do anything about that genocide, despite his catchy phrase, “not in our watch.”

The then, presidential candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform to stopping genocide in Sudan and promotes peace and development. After swearing in, President Barack Obama seems to have made good on his promises. His administration is filled by individuals who are passionate about peace to prevail in Sudan . President Obama wasted no time, but immediately appointed a Special Envoy to Sudan . Unfortunately, people later learned through the Special Envoy, Gen. Scott Gration that the US actually has no leverage over Sudan . The US policy paper on Sudan , adapted by President Obama administration seems to have remained in papers, as the administration cannot follow through with the implementation process, specifically the lack of stick and carrot component of the policy – the supposed leverage on Khartoum .

Since Sudan is at a critical juncture, the US administration needs to redouble its efforts in ensuring that the South Sudan referendum is conducted on time and it must be free and fair for the aspiration of South Sudanese people to prevail. In the commemoration of 9-11, the Americans will be speaking and acting in one unionism voice, and they can replicate that same voice and action when it comes to Sudanese current situation, where millions of people will decide their fate in South Sudan referendum expected to take place in January of 2011.

Steve Paterno is a Sudanese residing in the U.S.A., and he can be reached at [email protected]