US & International Policy Concerning Sudan

This page contains some writings by Dr. Curtis Doebbler about the United States' and the International Community's policies concerning Sudan. All the material is copyrighted by Dr. Curtis Doebbler (1999-2000). And may not be reprinted or otherwise used without his express written permission.

US Foreign Policy Concerning Sudan
While the civil war in Sudan continues to rage American policy towards Sudan is becoming more and more unrealistic.

Certainly ending the civil war in Sudan is not at the top of the United States' foreign policy priorities. This may not be surprising. But what certainly is surprising is the ineptitude that has characterised United States policy towards Sudan. It is an ineptitude that is astonishing when one considers the basic facts.

First, Sudan is the largest country in Africa and it is a strategic bridge between Arab North Africa and Middle East and South-Saharan Africa.

Second, Sudan is endowed with huge qualities of natural resources that are vital to American interests. These include at least oil, water and gum arabic.

Third, the Sudanese have often been vital to American foreign policy interests. Perhaps, the best example is during the Numeri years when the Sudan was instrumental in encouraging Egyptian co-operation with the Middle East peace process.

Fourth, as a consequence of Sudan's strategic importance, one or another part of its country has often been dependent on American assistance. Today, for example, the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Sudan, which in turn is home to the United Nations largest and longest humanitarian relief program. This last fact, in itself, should be good reason for a competent and coherent United States policy towards Sudan.

And fifth, Sudan is the ignominious home to the world's longest and most deadly on-going civil war. This war has already extracted a toll of an estimated more than two million lives over almost fifty years-with only a twelve-year pause. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have been forced into neighbouring countries and thousands have even fled as far as the United States. Even greater numbers have been displaced within Sudan-often left to the unmerciful designs of the party against whom most of their ethnic brothers and sisters are fighting. These internally displaced persons constitute-by almost twice-the largest number of internally displaced persons in the world at a recently estimated tally of more than four and half million.

Unfortunately, none of the above appears to have had much of an influence on American policy towards Sudan.

For example, in 1998 the United States government made Susan Rice responsible for Sudanese affairs. A capable women, she is also Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. In other words, Sudan is only one of at least fifty-five countries with which she must deal. Usually there will be a special desk officer, or officers, in the Bureau of African Affairs who will have a full-time responsibility for one country that is of even limited strategic importance to the Unite States. In addition, Susan Rice as expressing hostility towards the Sudanese, even many opposition figures from Sudan find her overbearing, uninformed and less than easy to deal with. Certainly, the current government of Sudan, which appears to be thoroughly entrenched despite its discouraging human rights record, does not deal with Sudan Rice at all.

In the 1990's the United States has had opportunities to build bridges with Sudan. Often this has been the work of the American ambassadors to Sudan. However, these ambassadors have often worked as much against obstruction from Washington as against the recalcitrant policies of the government in Sudan. These ambassadors were able to keep their pulse on one of the most complex political, ethnic, and social situations in the world-a Sudan that has hundreds of political, religious, ethnic and linguistic groups. Since 1998, however, the United States has not had an ambassador in Sudan and policy has been made only from Washington.

In 1999, the American government named Harry Johnson as Washington's Special Envoy for Sudan. Harry Johnson is a former congressman with a track record of hostility towards the government of Sudan. While he has taken some effort to speak to the Sudanese, he is strongly influenced by administration figures and fellow politicians who have an intense dislike for the government of Sudan and an equally strong ignorance of how this government operates. Just one example is Sam Brownback, the Kansas Senator who is the leading organizer of attention for Sudan-in the past with Harry Johnson. Brownback, like Johnson has never been to Northern Sudan under the current regime. Neither, for that matter, has his top policy advisor on Sudan. Like Harry Johnson, he has also repeatedly refused to speak with individuals who have been to Sudan or with Sudanese officials or opposition figures who live in Sudan.

It is widely known public knowledge that the leading American policy advisors on Sudan are either Sudanese opposition figures who have been outside of the country for close to a decade or Americans who have rarely, if ever visited Northern Sudan where the overwhelming majority of the Sudanese population live, even a large proportion of the Southerners. When internal opposition figures travel outside of Sudan they are denied audiences with any high ranking American officials, despite the fact that some of them have been awarded prizes by American foundations for their bravery in defending victims of violations of human rights in Sudan. Thus while John Garang and Sadig El Mahdi, who are outside more than inside Sudan, have met high ranking American officials; the likes of Ghazi Suleiman and Sidahmed Hussien, who daily risk their lives and freedom to advocate a return to democracy and respect for human rights inside Sudan, have not been able to meet with American officials on the rare occasions when they are able to travel abroad. Similarly, when an American national, who is the legal representative of two million internally displaced persons in Sudan, requested meetings with Susan Rice, Sam Brownback and other Americans involved in shaping our country's policy on Sudan, all his requests received negative responses.

In short, much of American foreign policy concerning Sudan appears to be characterised as a story of the ignorant leading the ignorant.

As a consequence of the ineptitude of American foreign policy concerning Sudan, the United States often inadvertly sabotages the activities of more knowledgeable and more capable actors. Perhaps the best example was when it looked like the peace process might be moving forward in August 1998 and the United States ended such hopes by spending hundreds of millions of dollars bombing a medicine manufacturer in Khartoum-a faut de paux that escapes rationale. The fact that the United States is largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Sudan, yet has squabbled over making more than minimal contributions to the establishment of a permanent secretariat to work towards ending the war is a more recent example.

In light of the lack of a coherent and competent American policy towards Sudan, the President's signing of the Sudan Peace Act-which allows the United States to provide food directly to the Sudanese rebels, while prohibiting other types of aid-is likely to exacerbate rather than improve this policy. Indeed, for the majority of observers who have worked on the problem of Sudan for years, the increased availability of food for one of the warring parties seems very likely to lengthen the war.

If the United States continues to meddle in the Sudan problem without committing the resources and competent personnel needed to bring the conflict to an end, it is likely just to get in the way of more competent initiatives. Perhaps, most frustratingly, if the United States continues its incoherent policy towards Sudan its influence in the region is likely to wane, and some of the interests for which it has recently fought are likely to be lost to the control of other nations. And while all this is happening, millions more Sudanese will be subjected to the inhumanity of war and continued gross and widespread violations of their human rights.