Before the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom
September 24, 2008
Sudan's Unraveling
Peace and the Challenge to U.S.
Policy
I would like to thank Chairwoman Gaer and other members of
the commission for your tireless promotion of religious freedom around the
world. I'd also like to thank this commission for its tremendous commitment to
the topic of today's hearing, the crisis in Sudan.Your efforts have helped build and sustain U.S. leadership
to end the devastating 20 year civil war, and for that you should be very
proud.
My testimony today will address threats to the agreement that ended that
brutal war-Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).However, I want to focus my remarks on the significant opportunities
available right now not just to implement
that agreement, but to achieve a lasting peace for all of Sudan, including Darfur.
The stakes could hardly be higher. If
the CPA unravels, there will be no chance for peace in Darfur, and if Darfur continues to deteriorate, the likelihood increases
dramatically of a return to what was-for 20 years-a far more destructive war in
the South.
The situation is certainly dire, but deep crises can present
distinct opportunities. At present, I believe there are three crucial opportunities
the United States must
urgently seize to prevent Sudan's
slide into full-scale war. First, the move by the International Criminal Court
against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has finally given real leverage to
force a behavior change in Khartoum.
A real threat of criminal prosecution goes well beyond the harsh rhetoric and
empty threats that have characterized the world's response since 2003. The second opportunity is the growing prospect
of an inclusive peace process for Darfur, one
which should be modeled upon the successful example of the U.S.-backed CPA. The
third is the countdown to national elections in 2009 and a self-determination
referendum for southern Sudan
in 2011, which is pushing CPA implementation higher on the foreign policy
agenda and concentrating minds in the U.S. and elsewhere on preventing a
return to war.
I want to be very clear that the United States cannot do this alone.
Robust diplomatic efforts are needed to increase international cooperation on a
comprehensive solution to Sudan's
long crisis.In particular, the United States must seize upon the potential
return to war in southern Sudan
as an opportunity to engage China
constructively on the CPA and on Darfur.China
has $8 billion invested in Sudan's
oil sector, mostly in the South, and if Sudan returns to war,rebels have
told me they will target oil installations.If China wants to
protect its investment, it is in Beijing's clear
interest to work with the U.S.
to forge a peaceful solution in Sudan.
Sudan at a Crossroads
The situation across Sudan ranges from perilous to
catastrophic. The CPA is under serious duress: the destruction of Abyei town,
increasing militarization in the Nuba
Mountains, and
lackadaisical progress on election preparations all raise serious concerns
about the durability of the agreement. In Darfur,
the violence and humanitarian situation have been deteriorating steadily for
the past several months. Citing increased insecurity, the U.N. World Food
Program recently announced that it could halt food shipments to some areas of
Darfur just when displaced persons are most in need. U.N. member states
continue to sell sophisticated weaponry to the Sudanese government, whose
forces have recently launched a new offensive against Darfur's
rebels. The Sudanese government has attacked international peacekeepers and, in
yet another perverse twist, is mounting a new offensive strategy centered on
direct military attacks against the desolate camps that are home to Darfur's
displaced civilians.
Yet today, at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, governments from around the world
are pressing to suspend the International Criminal Court case against Sudanese
president Omar al-Bashir. Diplomats from the African Union and Arab League, and
even ICC supporters such as France
and the United Kingdom, have
suggested that holding war criminals to account in Darfur
could derail efforts to end the crisis and achieve full implementation of the
CPA. They couldn't be more wrong. Should efforts to suspend the ICC case
succeed, the implicit message to President al-Bashir will be that he can
continue to pursue a military solution to Darfur
and obstruct implementation of the CPA at will. Such a scenario threatens the
future of Sudan's
very existence as a state.
Key Opportunities
Now
There are several key opportunities the United States must seize
(and work multilaterally to encourage others to follow suit) in order to capitalize
on the Sudanese government's incentive to make a peace deal before a new U.S. Administration
takes a harder line with Khartoum. Taking advantage of these opportunities, the
U.S. can make progress now
on two crucial issues: full implementation of the CPA; and forging a credible
peace process in Darfur.
Opportunity
One-An injection of real leverage
Article 16 of the Rome Statute, the charter that established
and governs the ICC, enables the Security Council to suspend an ICC
investigation on a one-year renewable basis-if
such a move is deemed in the interest of peace. The Sudanese government's
preoccupation with the ICC charges indicates that Bashir and his inner circle
view international justice as a serious threat, and the actions of Chief
Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo have given Bashir a vested interest in reaching a
peace deal in Darfur and actually implementing
the peace deal achieved between north and south in 2005.
Recent history makes it clear that Khartoum changes its behavior only when faced
with tangible penalties. In three instances-Khartoum's
cooperation in the "war on terror," its suspension of support for
slave-raiding, and its willingness to negotiate an end to the war in southern Sudan-the
regime shifted policy because its diplomatic adversaries drew a line in the
sand.
Unfortunately, the full court press by Sudan and its allies in the African Union and
Arab League to suspend the investigation has been accompanied by weak knees in Paris and London, placing
the United States
firmly in the driver's seat at the United
Nations Security Council. In late August, U.S.
diplomats met in London with their British and
French counterparts and sent an unambiguous message that, absent significant
behavior change in Khartoum, the United States
would block an Article 16 resolution in the Security Council.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, it is up to
the United States to set
clear and non-negotiable benchmarks that the government of Sudan must meet
prior to any consideration of Article 16. These should include a peace
agreement for Darfur, dismantling government-backed militias, unrestricted
deployment of a more effective peacekeeping force to Darfur,
and full implementation of the CPA. To date, the Sudanese government has made
no credible progress on these major benchmarks.
Opportunity
Two-National elections and southern self-determination
In the immediate aftermath of the ICC warrant request,
President Bashir rallied to his defense many disparate elements from inside and
outside Sudan.
From Sudanese opposition parties, to reliable protectors like China and the Arab League, to unfortunate allies
like South Africa and Rwanda-all
expressed support for a suspension of the ICC investigation through Article 16.
But this wagon-circling will not last long.By establishing a timetable for elections, the CPA seeks to give Sudanese
citizens more control in how their country is governed. National elections are
scheduled for 2009, and in 2011, the CPA allows southern Sudanese to vote on
whether to remain part of a united Sudan, or pursue
self-determination. The question for southern Sudan
is a simple one: Why would we want to
remain as part of Sudan?
Khartoum
has yet to provide a compelling answer. However, there is the real possibility
that Khartoum would launch another war to avoid
letting southern Sudan
exercise its peace agreement rights to vote for secession. With the clock
ticking, all actors-Sudanese and international-have strong motivations to
prevent this nightmare scenario.
Sudan's
most powerful backer, China,
has perhaps the greatest incentive to avoid a wider war. A sober analysis of China's economic interests in Sudan leads to an inevitable conclusion: The
cost of a full-scale war in Sudan
cannot justify China's
unwavering support for the National Congress Party. The bulk of China's $8 billion investment in Sudan's oil industry is concentrated in southern
Sudan,
and rebels there will almost certainly target Chinese oil installations should
there be a return to war. Seen in this light, China can only protect its investments
by working to avoid a return to war and to encourage full implementation of the
CPA. If pragmatic heads prevail in Beijing, an
unlikely partnership between China
and the United States
could be possible.
The parties and the guarantors to the CPA promised to "make
unity attractive" for all Sudanese, but the deeply engrained mistrust, the
death of SPLM leader John Garang, the NCP's response to Darfur, and slow
implementation of the CPA have done just the opposite. The CPA guarantees
southerners the right to independence from the North, and the international
community has an obligation to support the will of the southern Sudanese. Opinion
polling indicates that southern Sudanese will vote overwhelmingly for
independence if given the chance in 2011. Nothing concentrates the minds of diplomats
like the possibility of a new state, and it is clear that the international
community is now on track for a crisis in Sudan
even larger than that of Darfur. A
comprehensive approach to power-sharing remains the only way the international
community is likely to avoid a prolonged and bloody war that will engulf most
of Sudan
over time.
Opportunity Three-A new Darfur peace
process
The international community is consumed with the possibility
of an ICC arrest warrant for President Bashir and the lagging pace of UNAMID
deployment. However, the key to lasting peace in Darfur
is an inclusive peace agreement that ends the conflict and allows displaced
persons to return safely to their villages and rebuild their lives. Illustratively,
at a meeting of former U.S. secretaries of state last week in Washington, D.C.,
that was broadcast this weekend on CNN, our most senior diplomats sparred over
the U.S.'s obligation to intervene militarily in Darfur and, given deployments
to Iraq and Afghanistan, our ability to do so.Scant mention was made of the need for a credible peace process.Not surprisingly, the Darfur
peace process is in shambles.
Enough and its partners in the advocacy community have long
argued that a viable peace process for Darfur
should draw from the model used to negotiate the CPA: regional mediation
supported by senior diplomats from countries with leverage over the parties. Current
negotiations have been stalled for months for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is the United States'
stubborn insistence that the failed Darfur Peace Agreement, or DPA, is the road
map for peace in Darfur.Now it appears that the only rebel faction to
sign the DPA-the SLA group led by Minni Arko Minnawi-may
be on the verge of disavowing the deal. This would force the international
community to get fully behind a more inclusive new process.
And there is more good news.The United Nations and African Union took action in July to address the
inadequacies of the peace process by appointing Burkina Faso Foreign Minister Djibril Bassolé as the single mediator
for the Darfur peace talks. The U.S. must lead the international
community in providing Bassolé with the resources he needs-a full-time team
with expertise in all of the relevant issues under negotiation, backing from a group of countries
with leverage on the government and the rebels, and strong support from the
Security Council-so that he can
construct a new negotiations process that has a real chance of success.
The conventional wisdom about Darfur
is that the splintering of rebel factions has resulted in a vacuum of political
authority and the absence of a viable Darfurian interlocutor for peace
negotiations. However, this analysis wrongly assumes the rebels to be Darfur's only representatives. Indeed, the many failed
attempts to negotiate a settlement to the crisis all lacked inputs from one of
the most important stakeholder groups: the people of Darfur.
Darfurians have responded, and in recent months the efforts of civil society
groups inside Sudan
and in the Diaspora have begun to bear fruit. In the United States, a wider
umbrella of Darfuri organizations that calls itself the Darfur Leadership
Network, or DLN, has worked with several organizations (under the auspices of
the Save Darfur Coalition) to establish a platform that, if adopted by a broad
group of stakeholders, will consolidate these efforts around a single road map
for peace. My good friend and colleague Omer Ismail from Enough is here today and
has been closely involved in these extraordinary efforts.
A
credible peace process must address both the local and national issues that
underlie the conflict, ensuring that resolution of the conflict in Darfur
complements full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended
the conflict in southern Sudan
and that provides a blueprint for the democratic transformation of the entire
country. Activists have increasingly recognized that Darfur cannot be saved
without a solution to the problems of Sudan. But it is just as important
to recognize that full implementation of the CPA cannot be achieved without a
peace agreement in Darfur.
Conclusion
It is up to the U.S.
to lead the way forward on the peace process in Darfur
and full implementation of the CPA. The U.S.
must refocus the international community on the opportunities present today in Sudan,
instead of dwelling on the flat-lined DPA and making incremental improvements
to the fundamentally flawed UNAMID.
The Bush administration is entering lame duck territory, but
the Sudanese government is acutely aware that neither Senator Obama (D-IL) nor
Senator McCain (R-AZ) will take a softer line on Darfur or the issue of
southern Sudan.
Quite the opposite: Both McCain and Obama have advocated NATO enforcement of a
no-fly zone in Darfur, and Senator McCain has discussed the right of both
southern Sudan and Darfur to self-determination. In addition, McCain has
raised the possibility of providing southern Sudan
with air defense systems if it splits from northern Sudan. In short, Sudan's
government has more incentive now to make a peace deal than ever before. If
events continue on the current track, both the Sudanese government and the
international community are headed for an escalating military confrontation.
The huge opportunities for peace must be acted upon before it is too late for
millions of Sudanese people.