|
April 2002 U.S.
Support and Engagement Could Tip Scales Toward Peace It is not the mission of the International Rescue Committee to make declarations about genocide. We go to areas impacted by conflict to provide health services and other humanitarian assistance. We assess these situations carefully so we can make our work as effective as possible and prevent our activities from contributing to the crises we are trying to address. Simply put, the job of the IRC is to respond to the factors that make survival difficult. Whether scholars call the situation genocide is of course extremely interesting to us, but it does not dictate the way we do our work. What everyone knows is that the war is as intractable as ever, and that starvation, illness, and displacements are more often than not objectives rather than byproducts of the conflict. The aerial bombings of civilian targets in the South have been widely reported by a variety of sources and are a clear indication of the Khartoum government’s disregard for its own people. There are conflicting reports on the numbers of deaths caused by these bombings, but there is no doubt that they ruin fields, homes and infrastructure, cause displacement, and create a climate of constant fear. The situation in Sudan is extremely complicated. The war, which has been going on for most of the last 50 years, goes way beyond a North-run jihad to quash Christianity in the South. The war has been about many different things: water, grazing rights, religion, cultural identity, regional autonomy, political power, and, increasingly, oil. In truth, it is about all those things, but they line up differently depending upon whom you consult. If you were to ask southerners what the war is about, they would say cultural freedom. If you talk to outside analysts and humanitarians, you hear a lot about the oil industry. If you talk to the tribes who live on the North-South divide, you hear about grazing land and historical conflicts. If you talk to Nuer or Dinka, they will raise tribal issues they have with other groups in the South. This war is about so many things, and is fought on so many levels, between so many different groups. In terms of broaching the subject of genocide, one needs to consider why some northerners and Muslims are fighting on the side of the South, and why some southerners and Christians are fighting on the side of the predominantly Moslem North. Why do southern tribal groups fight each other, rather than their so-called northern enemies? Why have so many southern IDPs [internally displaced persons] insisted on seeking exile in the North? When oil came on line in 1999, the dynamics of the war began to move in new ways. Oil has made the war self-perpetuating and self-sustaining. The war is necessary to extract the oil, and the oil is necessary to finance the war. Moreover, the Sudanese have been very clever in not using their oil money simply to buy weapons from the outside; they have established their own arms industry in the North. This will create new industrial interests in the continuation of the war, making the war all the more self-perpetuating. The war now feeds on itself. Oil interests have also silenced a substantial number of players in the international community. Before, many of these same actors were outraged by the country’s human rights record; today, they are part of the problem with their own investments and agendas. Talisman, the Canadian oil company, has come under fire for its operations in Sudan. I personally think they should get out on purely ethical grounds, but it is important to realize that Talisman is not alone. China, Malaysia, and numerous European countries also have oil companies in Sudan. If they pull out, Sudan is likely to find other partners to take their place. Expectations tend to be higher for a western company with a western board of directors. As such, Talisman has drawn fresh attention to Sudan, which in itself could prove helpful in the overall context. But the problem is not limited to the companies directly exploiting the oil reserves; there are dozens of others producing pumps, pipelines, and related equipment. There is an enormous web of international financial interest in Sudan, a country which for decades had no strategic importance for anyone. In this respect, the United States may be uniquely situated to intervene. Our economic sanctions are a very good thing. If we were to couple the sanctions with real engagement on the issues, and the re-opening of embassies in Washington and Khartoum, progress could be made. Because of their oil-related interests, the European governments have lost their their moral authority to speak on Sudan. I believe the United States still has its moral bearing and should exploit it. There are some fascinating dynamics with the Bush administration which didn’t exist under President Clinton. On the one hand, President Bush has the religious right, the Black Congressional Caucus, and some liberal groups all pushing him to isolate the Khartoum government, if not militarily assist the southern rebel groups. On the other hand, the oil industry is pushing him to relax the sanctions—to "open up" Sudan for oil-related investment. It would seem the only way to reconcile these pressures would be to work toward peace. I think that in designating Senator Danforth to lead a delegation to Sudan, the President signaled that the country needs attention at the highest level. Like Nixon in China, President Bush may be uniquely situated to engage with Sudan. I cannot allow myself to say that I am optimistic on the subject of Sudan—the war is horrific and entrenched. You could almost say it is "perfect" in the way its elements intertwine in a self-perpetuating dynamic. But I do think it is important to note that, in the last three years, Sudan has made some changes for the better. In 1998, when the U.S. bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant it believed was manufacturing biological weapons, Sudan was seen as supportive of international terrorism (it had harbored Osama bin Laden, among others), as de-stabilizing the region (Sudan supported an attempted assassination of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak) and as having an atrocious human rights record. Three years later, you cannot reach the same conclusions. There is very little evidence that Sudan still supports international terrorism: it expelled Osama bin Laden, and has been actively cooperating with the U.S. to gather evidence on the crimes of September 11. With every one of its neighbors—Uganda, Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia and, notably, the Egyptians--Sudan has made major diplomatic and economic progress. In Khartoum earlier this year, I saw things that really struck me compared with a few years ago—even refugees were saying that they were not getting harassed as in the past. There is no longer a sundown curfew; there is even some nightlife. The telephone system works, which it never did in my 20 years of experience with Sudan. There has been relaxation of foreign currency restrictions and re-energizing of foreign trade. There are signs of movement on peace issues as well – a recent suspension of hostilities in the Nuba Mountains, pledges to deal with the issue of abductions, and even some movement on the issue of bombardment of civilian targets. The Danforth mission has been instrumental in these achievements. It is evidence that U.S. support for moderate factions in the Khartoum government can tip the scales toward peace in a way that isolation and military support have not. Still, the situation in Sudan remains dire. The old policy of isolating the regime hasn’t worked. There must be real engagement at the highest international levels and real commitment from the all sectors in Sudan—or this war will never end. Randolph Martin, Senior Director for Operations, International Rescue Committee
|