A blog about the politics and conflicts of the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, and the role of the United States in facilitating peacemaking, state-building and economic development in the region.
Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Egypt on Sunday to begin an important weeklong trip to Africa. Before his departure from Washington, the Save Darfur Coalition sent Mr. Biden an urgent appeal to make the dangerous situations in Sudan a top priority during his scheduled meetings with Egyptian, Kenyan, and South African leaders.
These three African powerhouse countries all have a stake in the future of Sudan. As neighbors, Egypt and Kenya would feel the direct impact of increased instability throughout the country, and especially the renewal of the North/South war. Egypt’s primary concern is the free flow of the Nile, although like Kenya it also fears a flood of refugees that would flee any new conflict. On the other hand, in the event that the Southern Sudanese choose independence next January in the referendum, Cairo and Nairobi could also reap considerable benefits from a peaceful separation. Investors in both countries, for example, are eyeing attractive business opportunities in a newly sovereign South Sudan that will be built from the ground up.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Egypt and Kenya have long played a role in regional peacemaking efforts to resolve Sudan’s decades of conflict. As a leading country within the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (a seven-country regional development organization for East Africa), Kenya provided the chief mediator and critical political support to the negotiations that resulted in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 between the National Congress Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M). During the North/South civil war, Egypt also attempted to broker talks and allowed both the SPLA/M and northern opposition to meet regularly in Cairo. As a continental diplomatic powerhouse, South Africa also consistently pressed both sides to end the war, and now South Africa chairs the AU Ministerial Committee on Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development in the Sudan (PCRD) and former South African President Thabo Mbeki now leads the African Union’s High Level Implementation Panel on Sudan.
While all three countries have sought to help Sudanese handle their recurring crises at different times in the past, not all of their contributions have been positive, nor coordinated. Most recently, Egypt has allegedly obstructed progress in the Darfur peace talks in Doha out of envy that the Qataris were taking the lead in the negotiations. With a declared preference for unity rather than separation, Egyptian officials have also sent mixed signals about whether they will recognize the results of the referendum. The situation of tens of thousands of Sudanese refugees living in Egypt has also grown more precarious as Egyptian security have at times arbitrarily harassed, detained and threatened refugees with illegal deportation.
How the international community deals with the interlocking crises in Sudan is no exception. Therefore, I was pleased to hear that Sudan was on the formal agenda of the two days of talks. It reportedly was one of only two non-regional issues that will be discussed. With that said, it’s unclear whether the discussions are making any progress on Sudan as the issue went unmentioned in the State Department’s recently released statement on outcomes from the dialogue.
From the outside, it sure looks like [Premier] Hu has a convenient excuse not to take any dramatic steps to challenge Khartoum’s deadly policies in Darfur, failure to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and enact true political reforms. Yet, this is the very reason why Save Darfur has urged President Obama not only to use moral suasion with the Chinese but appeal directly to their own national interests: keeping oil freely flowing (something impossible, for example, if war erupts again between the North and South). This type of realist case for tying incentives for the NCP directly to sustainable peace in Sudan has the real potential to influence even Khartoum’s closest supporters…
More recent reports include a story at The Wall Street Journalthat points out that Sudan is a key part of China National Petroleum’s $60 billion international push aimed at increasing its overseas oil production. The article states:
China National Petroleum has been selling assets to PetroChina that aren’t already part of the listed unit, but it keeps assets in politically sensitive countries like Iran and Sudan out of PetroChina to avoid backlash from international shareholders.
For those interested, Global Witness has produced very valuable reports on the need for transparency in Sudan’s oil industry to avoid a return to conflict between the North and the South. The organization, furthermore, urges China to use its significant influence in Sudan to implement key recommendations from the report.
It has not been a good week in Darfur or for the critics of the Sudanese government in Khartoum. Check out a piece that I just wrote at the human rights section of Change.org.
A new military offensive in Darfur, the arrest of political leaders, and the shutting down of newspapers in Khartoum: election season must be over in Sudan. Emboldened by electoral “success,” Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP) are sending troubling signals about their philosophy that will guide post-election governance.
Yet, blithely ignoring the deteriorating conditions in Darfur, an NCP leader told Darfuri students this week that his party was seeking to deepen peace and foster a culture of national unity (article in Arabic). Most people in Darfur instead fear that the faltering peace process, government offensive, and continuing crisis in Jebel Marra proffer a new post-election reality.
Critics and opposition leaders in Khartoum share such concerns…
Also, two nights ago I spoke with WSCOC-TV out of Charlotte, North Carolina about the kidnapping of three aid workers – one of them American – in Darfur with the organization Samaritan’s Purse which is based in Boone, NC. Today, I heard that the two Sudanese men kidnapped were released, but the American woman remains held hostage.
On Wednesday, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the challenges facing the forty million people of Sudan. General Gration gave a sobering and honest assessment of the post-election situation in Darfur, where violence has been on the rise, and of the potential roadblocks to a peaceful and transparent referenda process early next year.
The Senators pressed General Gration on the administration’s plans and available resources to respond effectively to “all possible scenarios.” As Senator John Kerry noted, the international community is in a rare position to have “a map of the fault-lines” of a crisis. While General Gration seemed to be surprisingly comfortable with the current resources at his own disposal within the State Department, he acknowledged the magnitude of the challenge. For example, General Gration agreed with the recent assessment by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that South Sudan is currently the area of the world most at-risk for mass killing or genocide. He also highlighted the key issues that could be triggers for conflict during the referendum period – most notably the demarcation of borders and oil sharing.
On Darfur, General Gration stressed for the first time in unequivocal language that general insecurity and lawlessness remains his chief concern. Rather than once again touting gains from the protracted peace talks in Doha or the diplomatic rapprochement between Sudan and Chad, he stated bluntly that such progress on the strategic level “has not changed the lives of people on the ground…[who] don’t have a way out.” Specifically, he noted as unacceptable the continuing offensive in Jebel Marra, the continued aerial bombardments by the Sudanese Armed Forces, and the breakdown in the ceasefire between the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese government. His frank acknowledgement of the unfilled gaps in services for victims of gender-based violence since the expulsion of 13 humanitarian aid organizations in March 2009 was also particularly noteworthy.
In his inaugural address, President Obama declared, “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” Unfortunately, in the case of Sudan, the hand remains extended, even as the fist remains clenched and poised to strike….It is not too late for President Obama to hold firm to his inaugural promise and declare his administration’s disapproval of politics as usual in Sudan. When the election results are announced this week, he can lead the international community in interpreting their significance. Rather than offering unearned praise, he should state that the administration still regards Bashir as an indicted war criminal on the wrong side of history. If the U.S. fails to stand up for its principles, advocates for democracy around the world will be disheartened, the Bashir government will continue to act with impunity, and the Sudanese people will lose faith in America, even as they face an uncertain and potentially dangerous future. (Read the rest of “Khartoum Dispatch: Assessing the Sudan Elections”)
Good timing for the report to be issued, as the administration’s response has been taking shape over the last 24 hours. My colleague, Robert Lawrence, provides a summary in our election roundup at Save Darfur. In short, the administration denounced the elections as neither free, nor fail – without assigning real blame to any actors in Sudan. The elections apparently were stolen by themselves.
The elections in Sudan over the last week have given rise to the broadest and most public debate about the governance of the country since before the 1989 coup that brought Omar Al-Bashir and his regime to power. Opposition parties, civil society organizations, and a nascent youth movement have participated loudly in the process — despite ever-present threats of intimidation and repression. These important elements of Sudanese society seized on the first openings of political space, even if many used the opportunity to boycott and denounce the electoral process…
A return, therefore, to purely autocratic politics may not be entirely possible. The chances, however, are more likely in the event that the Obama administration and others in the international community whitewash these elections and explicitly or implicitly confer legitimacy on the Bashir regime.
In response to this line of reasoning, James Traub at Foreign Policywrites on the Obama administration’s handling of the elections, and the advocacy community’s reaction to the administration’s overall policy of engagement. He asks some very relevant questions, such as: will engagement prove more effective this time than it did in the past?
The Carter Centerand European Union today issued preliminary reports on the Sudanese elections. Both found that the elections failed to meet international standards. Here is an excerpt from the Carter Center report:
While it is too early to offer a final overall assessment, it is apparent that the elections will fall short of meeting international standards and Sudan’s obligations for genuine elections in many respects. Nonetheless, the elections are important as a key benchmark in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and because of the increased political and civic participation that has occurred over the last several months. Ultimately, the success of the elections will depend on whether Sudanese leaders take action to promote lasting democratic transformation.
I focused on this final sentence in a Huffington Post piece yesterday.
On a recent pre-election trip to Sudan, a knowledgeable analyst told me that President Omar Al Bashir’s ruling National Congress Party (NCP) is not a monolith but a broad church. Like other aging autocratic regimes, the NCP has largely exhausted its ideological fervor. Rather than incessantly extolling the virtues of an Islamic state as in the first years of the 1989 coup, most energy is now focused on devising the best ways to remain in power. The multiplicity of spokespeople – some moderates and some hardliners – within the party actually serves it quite well, as it is able to project different and oftentimes conflicting narratives to serve its core overriding objectives.
Statements on the closing days of Sudan’s first multiparty elections in 24 years offer an insight into differences within the NCP on the best ways to handle public messaging. They also forecast that the “good cop, bad cop routine” specialized by the regime over the last two decades is likely to continue.
My colleagues and I at the Save Darfur Coalition will be writing more in the coming days. You can see our daily coverage of the elections thus far here.
As the faithful readers of this blog will know, the first multi-party elections in 24 years began today in Sudan. With Save Darfur, I will be continuing to cover the events closely.
Today, I was fortunate to have an op-ed published at Al Jazeera English:
“Things will be different after the elections,” asserted Ghazi Salahuddin, Sudan’s presidential advisor and chief interlocutor with the US, at the end of a meeting with a delegation from the Save Darfur Coalition of which I was part in February.
He expressed confidently to us that the national elections – the first multi-party elections in Sudan since 1986 – would fundamentally change Sudanese politics for the better.
Since that day, the credibility of the elections has been called into question by the withdrawal of candidates and the boycott of a number of opposition parties.
Rather than serving as a step forward in the long road to peace and democracy, many Sudanese now fear what a newly emboldened regime in Khartoum may mean for the country.
Sudan Vote Monitor – an independent Sudanese civil society initiative to monitor events in real time
Also, check out this photo essay in The New York Timesof a Darfuri community in Brooklyn that I know well. They are watching the elections intensely and hoping things remain calm.
Lastly, here is a photo essay from Pete Muller (whom I had met in South Sudan) on a young singer, Mary Boyoi, who decided to run for these elections.
In scanning the news on Sudan early this morning, I came across a short item on Radio Dabanga’s website “Two opposition politicians arrested in Nyala” about a government security raid on the local headquarters of two national political parties. As I wrote in an article at The New Republic today, this type of incident has been fairly common place during the two-month election period in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan.
And then I realized that I had actually met one of those detained, Dr. Nour Al Sadiq. She is currently an appointed member of National Parliament representing the Communist Party. Along with her party, she chose not to contest the elections in Darfur. In a few days, therefore, she will lose her seat – and, as these arrests may signal, her limited protection from harassment by the Sudanese regime.
To check up on Dr. Nour—who in addition to her parliamentary responsibilities works with women in internally displaced camps—I called Salih Mahmoud Osman. Also from Darfur, he serves with Nour in the Parliament as one of two other appointed members from the Communist Party. Salih has received many awards for his legal and human rights advocacy since the beginning of the crisis in Darfur, and for these efforts endured a prolonged period of detention in 2004.
From Khartoum, Salih confirmed the arrests and that the security agents stormed their office in Nyala yesterday and seized documents and computers. It seems that the authorities targeted her and the other leader, Abdul Rahman Ahmed Hassan of the Umma Party for Reform and Renewal, for signing a statement with others this week urging Darfuris to not participate in the elections. Fortunately after four hours, Nour was released, but only after repeated threats and intimidation to stop these activities.
A visit to Sudan makes clear: The election is going to be a sham.
In February, as part of a delegation from the Save Darfur Coalition, I met Mustafa Ismail in Khartoum. Ismail is the country’s former foreign minister and current presidential adviser to President Omar Al Bashir. He thanked us for our “timely visit,” then proceeded to speak almost uninterrupted for close to an hour about the Sudanese regime’s new commitment to democracy, peace, and development. To that end, he urged the international community to endorse the country’s upcoming nationwide elections and stop “inflaming” the situation in Sudan with false accusations.
Now, with the Sudanese vote set to begin this weekend, the Obama administration seems to be doing exactly what Ismail had wanted. Last month, Scott Gration, the U.S. special envoy to Sudan, said that “significant preparations have been made to ensure that the elections will really reflect the will of the people” (although he added that there were “logistical challenges” still to resolve). Then, last weekend—after the presidential candidate of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the major party that represents southern Sudan, withdrew from the race, citing the prospect of massive fraud and intimidation—Gration said that members of Sudan’s electoral commission had “given [him] confidence that the elections … would be as free and as fair as possible,” adding that they “have gone to great lengths to ensure that the people of Sudan will have access to polling places and that the procedures and processes will ensure transparency.”
Gration’s optimism is baffling. As I learned during my recent four-week trip to Sudan—when I visited Khartoum, the southern part of the country, and Darfur—there is no chance that these elections will be even remotely free or fair. (Read the rest here)
My colleagues Jerry Fowler and Mark Lotwis left Sudan last Friday heading back to Washington. In order to set up a few more meetings in the South, I stayed on in Juba. Little did we know President Omar al-Bashir and his entourage of advisors and security agents would be coming to town—and staying in the same modest hotel as the Save Darfur delegation, in the very wing where Jerry had been sleeping.
Over the weekend, I had heard that Bashir would be traveling to Juba and a few other towns in the South to campaign. In my mind, I imagined a quick dash by motorcade from the airport to a rally in Juba and then a few darts by plane to some other choice locations in the Greater Equatoria states.
So I was quite surprised when early Monday afternoon, I was confronted by a newly erected roadblock in front of my hotel. Initially, the mix of police and security officials told me that I could not pass. When I explained that I was staying at the hotel beyond their checkpoint, they quickly scanned my backpack and then gave me strict instructions on how to walk to the next crowd of security personnel suddenly stationed in front of hotel gate. After another round of negotiations that involved coaxing hotel staff out to verify my claims, I was finally permitted to enter the foyer—where I was promptly urged by a security guard to take my room key and, like a misbehaving child, go straight to my room.
Creating this blog gave me the opportunity to add مخ زي جزمة - "mokh zay gazma" - to the internet archives. A google search demonstrates that no one has transliterated this Egyptian Colloquial Arabic expression into English in the same way that I have. The term literally means "brains like a shoe" and in Egypt it is a derogatory term used to describe someone who is extremely stubborn. The role of intransigence and the dearth of creativity for new solutions should be clear to all those who track developments in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. This blog intends to comment regularly on these politics and the role of an often sadly, stale America foreign policy in supporting peacekmaking, state-building, and economic development in these closely linked volatile regions.
