It is truly amazing how Sudanese-American relations operate in two parallel levels. Over two decades relations between the two countries continue to show great condemnation, animosity and yet high level of cooperation in delicate matters. To quote from Suzanne Goldenberg[1]: "Khartoum is probably the only government in the Arab League that has contributed in a major way to the protection of US forces and citizens in Iraq". Nevertheless, since 1993, Sudan annually appears in the United States Department of State list of State Sponsors of Terrorism or Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Presence on the list bars a country from receiving U.S. arms exports, controls sales of items with military and civilian applications, limits U.S. aid and requires Washington to vote against loans to the country from international financial institutions.
Definitely, Sudanese-American relations are far more complex than to be analyzed by security cooperation alone. However, the contradictions that these relations show in this field is astonishingly amazing. The Department of State report in 2010 indicates that, “The Sudanese government has taken steps to limit the activities of foreign terrorist groups within Sudan and has worked hard to disrupt foreign fighters’ use of Sudan as a logistics base and transit point for violent extremists going to Iraq” and that “Sudan was generally responsive to the international community’s concerns on terrorism and was generally supportive of international counterterrorism efforts”.
Many reports has confirmed that Sudanese government tried repeatedly to turn over Bin Laden to either the Saudis or the U.S. Eventually, Sudan forced Bin Laden to move to Afghanistan in 1996, and offered cooperation on counter-terrorism efforts with the White House and the FBI. Gestures from Khartoum were rebuffed even as it offered its services against an emerging al-Qaida. In 1999, Sudan again signaled its willingness to cooperate with global counterterrorism measures. The Sudan government signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing in 2000. These moves prompted the UN Security Council to lift its terrorism-related sanctions against Khartoum in 2001. Sudan has also worked with neighboring states to combat terrorism in the region. In 2003, it ratified the African Union’s Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism and had signed additional counterterrorism agreements with Algeria, Yemen, and Ethiopia.
Only during the year 2000 that the United States and Sudan entered into a counterterrorism dialogue. Sudan was emerging as a surprisingly valuable ally in the global war on terror. Intelligence cooperation has produced significant results ranging from information sharing, suspects detention and interrogation, evidence recovery, to extremists expulsion and disruption of foreign fighters' use of Sudan as a logistics base and transit point. Reports also noted that Sudan took steps to meet international standards in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. A senior State Department official commended that Sudan has "given us specific information that is ... important, functional and current". These efforts have prompted the United States to commend Sudan for its counterterrorism practices. In 2007, the U.S. State Department called Sudan a “strong partner in the War on Terror,” and praised Sudan for aggressively pursuing terrorist operations that threatened U.S. interests.
In light of this progress, Sudan has been intensively lobbying the US so it can be removed from the terrorism list. Many officials in the ruling party feel that they alienated their Islamic base by cooperating with Washington in areas like Somalia and Iraq without getting anything in return. The Obama administration announced earlier this year that it initiated the process of delisting Sudan to reward Khartoum for facilitating the South's referendum and later recognizing its results. A key condition for removing Khartoum from the US blacklist is that it does not "directly or indirectly" support terror groups. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a separate statement, said that the "Removal of the State Sponsor of Terrorism designation will take place if and when Sudan meets all criteria spelled out in US law," she said. The de-listing process however, appears to have been stalled by reasons other than terrorism support. Strange enough, the US government cited clashes that erupted in South Kordofan between the Sudanese army and Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) units as well Khartoum's military takeover of Abyei which is a contested oil-rich region that lies on the North-South borders as an excuse to keep Sudan in the list of condemned.
The U.S. special envoy Scott Gration said at a Congress hearing in 2009 that the terrorism designation for Sudan is no longer valid, and called it a "political decision". Many specialists questioned the US government offer to delist Sudan in the first place, stressing that the only legitimate basis for delisting Sudan would be if it has ended its involvement in terrorism, not as a quid pro quo for holding the referendum. Many American journalists wonder whether the US government keep countries on the list because they're genuinely sponsors of terrorism, or because the administration want to punish these governments for other reasons?.
This analysis is the tip of the iceberg of contradictions that govern Sudanese-American relations not only in the security field but in other aspects too. A closer reading will reveal that Sudan has fulfilled its political and other obligations, working hard towards achieving peace and stability regionally and within its borders. At the same time, the country faces daily disappointment from broken American promises with regard to support and normalization of relations, especially after American brokered peace deals in Nifasha and Abuja. The upcoming papers will discuss these matters in details.
No comments:
Post a Comment