Thaw in US-Sudan ties, but to what extent?

Thaw in US-Sudan ties, but to what extent?

The announcement of a new US policy towards Sudan has come after years of secret cooperation on terrorism. Sudan helped the CIA with anti al-Qaeda efforts in the Horn of Africa region. The Sudanese have not even been trying to hide this fact.

They were expecting immediate dividends: the lifting of US sanctions, removing Sudan from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. But none of that happened. So during the Bush years, Khartoum got really frustrated that after all it had given (historic concessions to the southerners in the Naivasha peace agreement and cooperation on terrorism) the US government had not changed its hostile stance towards the government of Sudan. Economic and military sanctions remained in place, Sudan's name has been kept on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the US has been the only country on earth to label the conflict in Darfur as genocide.

Given all of that, the Sudanese government felt it had no choice but to wait for more favorable times to come, which is supposedly what has happened.

President Barack Obama appointed a new special envoy to Sudan, who spoke in a more favorable tone, to the extent that he vexed humanitarian NGOs when he said the conflict in Darfur would be solved by the end of this year. He was quoted as saying that the situation is getting better in Darfur and that the Sudanese government is doing its best to solve the problem. Local leaders at camps for the displaced in Nyala tried to boycott a meeting with Scott Gration in protest to what they thought of his pro-Khartoum stance.

Mr. Gration has also angered the field commanders of the Sudan Liberation Army – Abdul Wahid branch, when he said during a meeting with them in Jabal Marra, west Darfur, that they need to have a more flexible leadership which agrees to participate in peace talks. The commanders considered the remark a call to remove Abdul Wahid from the role of SLA leader. The SLA is one of the main rebel groups fighting in Darfur against the Sudanese government, but Abdul Wahid has been the most adamant against any talks with Khartoum.

But even in Southern Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) is looking with some unease at the recent US policy towards the government in which they are partners in Khartoum. Again Mr. Gration during his recent visit to the southern capital of Juba has been talking about the need for Sudan to remain united.

That's a stance which cannot please the separatist hawks in SPLM, who are betting on a vote for independence during the referendum scheduled to take place in the south in 2011. SPLM has seen Gration's efforts as playing in the hand of an oppressive Arab north which is trying to keep the south under its tutelage forever. They believe the US has deviated from its traditional role as a friend of the south in its struggle for freedom.

Regarding the indictment of Sudanese leaders over Darfur, it's also worth noting that the US has from the outset been lukewarm towards the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al Bashir. Neither country is a member of that organization anyway. But that may not be the main reason.

So, Washington and Khartoum were already on a path of rapprochement, even before the announcement in Washington of a new policy that prioritizes dialogue and incentives for Khartoum over pressure and threats.

And yet, the new policy statement has not really brought any major change. Sanctions and the charge of terrorism are still in place. These are the main sticking points. Also, the statement has not discarded the genocide accusation which was thought to be a Bush thing. The UN has not endorsed the genocide claims. Nor has any other country around the world. But the new US policy statement contained the word “genocide” several times, saying Khartoum has to stop it before any real mending of the diplomatic ties can happen between the two countries.

Sudanese observers do not expect much to change after the new policy announcement. Professor Hassan Makki, head of Africa International University in Khartoum said:

"US politics are not decided by the White House or by Mr. Obama alone; but rather by lobbies and pressure groups such as the Black Caucus and the Jewish lobby. Those groups make an integral part of the Democratic Party and it cannot but listen to them. They are more powerful than Obama's resolve."

Of course, we can remember that US policy on Sudan during the Clinton years was much tougher than during the Bush years. The Democrats had adopted a policy of confrontation with Khartoum, while the Republicans followed a policy of “containment”. And yet, the basics remained the same during both administrations.

So, the expectations of a positive change under a new Democratic administration is not that high, even with Mr. Obama at the helm.