Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on October 25, 2002 at 12:48:09: EST (-5 GMT)

OPINION: ARROGANCE PLUS IGNORANCE: THE U.S. 'SUDAN PEACE ACT'

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 25 October 2002

Sudan in 2002 is on the brink of peace. There are constitutional and
political offers on the negotiating table, up to and including an
internationally-monitored referendum on southern Sudan's status, that
address the issues central to the Sudanese conflict. The former Prime
Minister and rebel leader, Sadiq al-Mahdi, has also declared, for
example, that: "There are now circumstances and developments which could
favour an agreement on a comprehensive political solution."(1)

One of the constant impediments to the Sudanese peace process has,
however, been American policy towards Sudan, policy based on self-
evidently inaccurate images of Sudan. The culmination of this policy was
President Bush's signing into law of the "Sudan Peace Act" on 21 October
2002. A more explicit example of confused, distorted and poorly-informed
legislation would be hard to find. It is an Act that while paying lip
service to the need for a "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in
Sudan" at the same time provides one side to the conflict with hundreds
of millions of dollars worth of logistical assistance, assistance that
will be diverted to sustain gunmen and acquire weapons. It is an Act
that decries the manipulation of food aid while ignoring the fact that
the side it is supporting has been accused of diverting two-thirds of
foreign assistance within the areas it controls. It is also an act which
decries the abuse of human rights within Sudan but provides hundreds of
millions of dollars to those accused of appalling human rights abuses in
Sudan.

This legislation seeks to continue foreign interference in a conflict
that has raged since 1955, fought, in its most recent phase, since 1983
between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army
(SPLA) led by John Garang. Even a brief examination of attempts to
achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan and relief
efforts within that country reveal the deep flaws within this
legislation. It comes into force just in time to hinder the significant
progress made during the Machakos peace talks this year. In so doing it
follows a pattern of American interference at key times during the peace
process. (In 1997, for example, the United States government derailed a
pivotal round of peace talks due to discuss the Khartoum government's
offer of a referendum on southern Sudanese self-determination by
imposing comprehensive economic sanctions on Sudan - thus purposefully
strengthening the SPLA's position, leading them to ignore the offer and
continue the war.)

In addition to presenting a hopelessly unbalanced perspective on Sudan,
for example, the "Sudan Peace Act" authorises the appropriation of $100
million for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 for
"assistance" to areas of Sudan outside government control, that is to
say those areas of Sudan controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation
Army (SPLA).

The Act also mandates that the U.S. President to "certify" within six
months of enactment, and each 6 months thereafter, that the Sudanese
government and the SPLA are negotiating in "good faith" and that the
negotiations should continue. If the Sudanese government is deemed by
the American government not to have acted in "good faith", the U.S.
President is then expected to implement the following measures: seek a
UN Security Council arms embargo on the Sudanese government; instruct
American officials to actively oppose any loans, credits or guarantees
for Sudan from international financial institutions; deny Sudan access
to oil revenues and downgrade or suspend diplomatic relations.

It should be noted in any examination of the "Sudan Peace Act" that the
track record of the United States government and Congress on peace in
Sudan has been appalling. In any examination of the search for a
"negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan", a little should
be said first about those people who drafted the Act. The Act was
drafted by legislators such as Representatives Tancredo, Wolf and Payne
and Senators Frist, Brownback and Feingold, whose previous involvement
with Sudan had resulted in an escalation in the Sudanese conflict and
regional tensions. In April 2001, former United States President Carter,
a Nobel Peace Laureate and one of the most respected and objective
commentators on events within Sudan, said of this period: "For the last
eight years, the U.S. has had a policy which I strongly disagree with in
Sudan, supporting the revolutionary movement and not working for an
overall peace settlement." (2) This echoed earlier concerns voiced by
Carter. In December 1999 he had observed:

The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle
is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the
government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically
by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in
Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the
war.(3)

It is clear, then, that these legislators are hardly the best qualified
group of people to talk about peace in Sudan. Far from working for peace
they have stood by while the United States militarily and economically
destabilised the largest country in Africa. They helped shape American
Sudan policy from 1993 onwards - precisely the period referred to by
Carter. While they publicly lament the numbers of deaths during this
conflict, they are themselves directly responsible for the deaths
through war, starvation or disease of thousands of Sudanese. Far from
taking Carter's concerns into consideration, the "Sudan Peace Act"
merely perpetuates the Clinton Administration's failed and farcical
Sudan policies. The United States Congress has shown itself either
amazingly naïve or blatantly hypocritical in drafting the "Sudan Peace
Act".

This American attitude was all the more regrettable since the Sudanese
government has repeatedly invited constructive United States involvement
within Sudan.(4)

Assistance to the SPLA

For all the self-righteous posturing by the drafters of this
legislation, the primary concern must be the effect this Act will have
on the SPLA's willingness to negotiate peace.

It is precisely this sort of political and financial support that has
previously prolonged the Sudanese conflict. Former President Carter, a
Nobel Peace Laureate who has been involved in Sudanese issues for two
decades, observed of previous American political and financial
assistance, that: "I think [SPLA leader John] Garang now feels he
doesn't need to negotiate because he anticipates a victory brought about
by increasing support from his immediate neighbors, and also from the
United States and indirectly from other countries". In 2000 and 2001,
the United States Congress voted millions of dollars worth of assistance
to Sudanese rebels.(5) The "Sudan Peace Act" is a continuation of this
policy. It will merely reinforce SPLA intransigence with regard to peace
talks. Receiving hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the United
States, most of which will be diverted to sustain any military capacity,
is a marked disincentive for the SPLA to negotiate in good faith. Added
to this, the SPLA (and more importantly those American groups and
agencies supporting the SPLA) will also realise that any lack of
progress in the peace talks due to SPLA intransigence can be presented
by their well-oiled propaganda machine as being the government's fault
- which in turn will trigger the other American measures outlined in the
"Sudan Peace Act".

There is no doubt that any American aid will be largely diverted by the
SPLA to sustain itself and its military effort. The "Sudan Peace Act"
states and restates concern about the facilitation of relief efforts
within southern Sudan. The Act is also hostile to the United Nations-
administered Operation Lifeline Sudan. It further repeatedly refers to
the manipulation of food aid by the government of Sudan. Whatever the
veracity of the claims about the Sudanese authorities, what the Act
conveniently ignores is that the SPLA, the organisation it seeks to
logistically assist, and to whom it wishes to make access to relief aid
easier, has been the biggest abuser of relief aid in this conflict. The
human rights group, African Rights, for example, has clearly stated
that: "On the whole, SPLA commanders and officials of the Sudan Relief
and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA, its humanitarian wing), have seen
relief flows as simple flows of material resources. The leadership has
also used aid for diplomatic and propaganda purposes."(6) Despite stated
concerns about the manipulation of aid, this did not feature in the Act.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of the rebel-controlled diocese of Rumbek,
Monsignor Caesar Mazzolari, stated that the SPLA were diverting 65
percent of the assistance going into rebel-held areas of southern Sudan,
even at the height of starvation in southern Sudan. Agence France Presse
also reported that: "Much of the relief food going to more than a
million famine victims in rebel-held areas of southern Sudan is ending
up in the hands of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), relief
workers said."(7)

It is also clear that the American assistance envisaged in the Act will
be distributed by groups outside the framework of the neutral Operation
Lifeline Sudan. The often questionable nature of this sort of non-OLS
"humanitarian" assistance to Sudan has already been documented. The
American government, for example, has given millions of dollars in
funding to Norwegian People's Aid (NPA), a non-governmental organisation
active in southern Sudan. A November 1999 Norwegian television
documentary, entitled 'Weapons Smuggling in Sudan', has highlighted the
role played by NPA in logistically and politically perpetuating the
Sudanese civil war.(8) There had always been considerable speculation
as to whether NPA was militarily involved with the SPLA. This
documentary confirmed that the NPA has for several years organised an
air-bridge for the supply of weapons to battle zones within Sudan. One
of the NPA pilots involved in the gun running stated that on one
occasion his plane had landed at SPLA bases with some 2.5 tonnes of
weapons. It was stated that Norwegian People's Aid had flown between 80
- 100 tonnes of weapons into Sudan in aeroplanes supposedly carrying
humanitarian assistance. Among the tonnes of weapons flown into Sudan
were landmines. The documentary also placed on record other clear
evidence of NPA military involvement with the SPLA. Norwegian People's
Aid openly states that "[a] major contributor to our programme in Sudan,
is the USAID".(9) This is the sort of organisation that the "Sudan Peace
Act" envisages channelling "relief" in southern Sudan rather than the
neutral and accountable UN mechanisms.

SPLA: A Commitment to Peace?

Given that the legislation is so supportive of the SPLA it is important
to examine the SPLA position on peace. It is clear that the SPLA has
been an obstacle to peace in Sudan. This is perhaps best illustrated by
John Garang's statement, for example, regarding the SPLA's participation
in the crucial November 1997 round of IGAD peace talks in Nairobi (the
first meeting after the government's historic offer of an
internationally-monitored referendum on self-determination) that "[w]e
intended not to reach an agreement with the [Sudanese government]. This
is what we did and we succeeded in it because we did not reach an
agreement." (10) There is clearly growing frustration within the
international community at the SPLA's intransigence. This frustration
has been highlighted as a result of the positive shift in international
opinion with regard to Sudan. The United Nations, for example, has
pointedly called upon the SPLA to accept Khartoum's offers of cease-
fire.(11) In September 2001, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
human rights in the Sudan observed that: "sources...pointed out that
among most of SPLM/A leaders there is no serious commitment to
peace".(12)

The SPLA's apparent reluctance to seriously negotiate a peaceful
resolution to the conflict is a matter of record. The SPLA has waged war
since 1983 against several governments in Khartoum - military,
transitional and democratic - and repeated attempts at a negotiated
resolution of the conflict have failed. While it is true that several
governments came and went in the 1980s - there were six coalition
governments during Sadiq al-Mahdi's tenure alone - the same government
has now been in power in Sudan since 1989. The SPLA has constantly
changed the conditions it has set for ending the war and negotiating. In
the 1980s it demanded that Sudan's military pacts with other countries
be abrogated, that Nimeiri's September 1983 sharia laws be repealed and
that there should be a national constitutional conference. Sudan's
military pacts have been dropped, in 1991 the government exempted
southern Sudan from sharia law and the Libyan-Egyptian initiative
envisages a national dialogue conference. Yet the war continues, SPLA
demands change and peace talks falter.

John Garang's disdain for the Sudanese peace process has also been
illustrated by his launching of large-scale offensives often one or two
days before, or on the same day as, regionally brokered peace talks. On
one occasion, thirty minutes before the June 2001 peace summit was due
to be held in Nairobi, the SPLA faxed a statement to Associated Press
stating that its forces had captured the southern town of Raga,
declaring "this is excellent timing".(13) Similarly, during the
September 2000 IGAD peace talks, the SPLA escalated its military
activity claiming to have inflicted "heavy loss of life and equipment"
on government forces and to have captured the garrison town of
Tahajulbolis.(14) Similar activity also disrupted the 2002 Machakos
peace talks.

Speaking out in May 2000, prominent southern Sudanese leader Bona
Malwal, a former culture and information minister, and publisher of the
opposition Sudan Democratic Gazette, wrote to John Garang stating "I
have noticed and revealed the duplicity with which you have participated
in the peace process. Many Southerners have spoken for some time about
the need to arrive at a Southern consensus over the question of Self-
Determination. They recognise the need to fill the vacuum created by
your vague goals for the war of liberation. After seventeen years of
this bloody war in which two million of our people have perished, the
Northern Sudanese political establishment as a whole has said that they
would negotiate a political agreement with you to work out the
modalities for a referendum on self-determination for the South. Yet,
you have personally dodged this issue - as seen in the way you have
briefed your delegations to the various rounds of the Intergovernmental
Authority for Development (IGAD) peace talks....Perhaps your own tactics
make you blind to this, but there is indeed increasing support among the
Southern Sudanese people for pursuing peace, if peace is pursued
honestly, diligently and in good faith by the other side. How many more
millions of Southern Sudanese do you want to die to satisfy your
ego?"(15) Much of this SPLA intransigence can be laid at the feet of the
United States Government and Congress.

The "Sudan Peace Act" is riddled with blatant dishonesty. While
professing a concern for human rights, the Act provides hundreds of
millions of dollars in assistance to an organisation with an appalling
human rights record. In November 1999, for example, eight reputable US-
based humanitarian organisations working in Sudan, groups such as CARE,
World Vision, Church World Service and Save the Children, no friends of
the Sudanese government, publicly stated that the SPLA has: "engaged for
years in the most serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial
killings, beatings, arbitrary detention, slavery, etc."(16) In December
1999, Human Rights Watch stated that: "The SPLA has a history of gross
abuses of human rights and has not made any effort to establish
accountability. Its abuses today remain serious".(17)

The 'New York Times', another outspoken critic of the Khartoum
government, has described the SPLA as "brutal and predatory...an
occupying army, killing, raping and pillaging". It is ironic that the
"Sudan Peace Act" also contains a section dealing with "the
investigation of war criminals" given that the same Act provides the
SPLA, a group clearly guilty of involvement in war crimes, with hundreds
of millions of dollars worth of American tax-payers money. The 'New York
Times', for example, has stated that SPLA leader John Garang is one of
Sudan's "preeminent war criminals".(18). The U.S. Congress cannot have
been unaware of this appalling human rights record. American Sudan
specialist John Prendergast, who served with both the National Security
Council and State Department, and who has briefed many of these
legislators, has, for example, stated on record that the SPLA "was
responsible for egregious human rights violations in the territory it
controlled".(19) Prendergast also personally placed on record that: "The
SPLA has faced a tidal wave of accusations and condemnation from
international human rights organizations and local churches over its
human rights record." (20)

It is unsurprising that the "Sudan Peace Act" is as skewed as it is
given the sorts of views held by those legislators who helped to draft
it. Their prejudice and ignorance regarding Sudan is clear. This was
clearly illustrated in the Congressional debate which followed the
enacting of the Bill. In a generalised reference Representative Smith
referred to Sudan as "a brutal dictatorship". Yet, only a few months
earlier, somewhat more objective and independent reporting by Associated
Press stated that "Sudan has come a long way...the changes in this
country...are too sweeping and popular to be rolled back. Human Rights
and civil society groups operate openly. Press censorship has been
lifted and independent newspapers freely criticize government
policies."(21)

Several other representatives cited severe religious persecution.
Representative Bachus of Alabama, for example, claimed "(T)oday in Sudan
people are given a simple choice. They are either told to embrace the
state-sponsored faith or die. That is the choice." New Jersey
Representative Payne similarly claimed that "religion...is a major
factor" in the Sudanese conflict. While obviously successful as a
propaganda projection, especially within the Washington Beltway, the
simple fact is that the Sudanese conflict is about constitutional and
political changes within southern Sudan. Even the Congressionally-funded
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has confirmed that
the largely non-Muslim southern Sudan was exempt from Islamic sharia
law.(22) The British Government, for example, responding to a question
in parliament about religion in Sudan, stated in 2001: "Sharia law is by
and large not imposed on mainly Christian areas such as south Sudan,
although there are federal laws which infringe on religious freedom
(e.g. Islamic banking system)".(23) It should also be noted that in
November 2001, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in the Sudan noted that "all counterparts I meet concurred
with the view that there is no religious persecution as such" in
Sudan.(24) He also noted that: "church interlocutors almost unanimously
share the general opinion that the war has no religious
motivation...".(25) The New York Times would seem to have confirmed
these views, reporting that "Khartoum's churches on Sunday are filled to
overflowing with Christians, worshipping freely, and those congregations
are growing. One measure of the strength of Christianity here is that in
recent years Catholic priests have been performing more than 7,000
baptisms of newborns every Easter, church officials said...In dozens of
interviews, Christians acknowledged they do not face overt oppression.
By and large they are free to go where they please and to worship at the
existing churches."(26) The newspaper also quoted a Catholic priest as
saying "It is difficult to say there is direct persecution".

The conflict has always been about the political status of southern
Sudan. While the SPLA appear to be confused, the Khartoum authorities'
approach would appear to be clear. If the SPLA are fighting for autonomy
or even separation this has already been offered by the government. In
1997, having already introduced a federal system and exempted southern
Sudan from Sharia law, the Sudanese Government, in the Khartoum Peace
Agreement, also offered, amongst other things, the holding of a free and
fair, internationally-supervised, referendum in which the people of
southern Sudan could, for the first time ever, choose whether to remain
as a part of Sudan or to become independent. This offer has also been
written into the 1998 Constitution, and repeated on several occasions
(27), most recently during the June 2001 peace talks in Nairobi.(28) It
is an offer that has also been acknowledged by the SPLA.(29)

The Sudanese government has repeatedly offered a comprehensive
ceasefire.(30) In April and May 2000, Khartoum once more declared its
readiness to enter into "an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire" and
to restart negotiations for the achievement of a comprehensive peace: it
called upon the SPLA to do the same.(31) Throughout 2001 and 2002, the
Sudanese government called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Khartoum appears to have sought out every possible peace forum. (32) The
Sudanese government has also repeatedly requested international
assistance in securing a peaceful end to the conflict.(33) It is
difficult to see how much further towards a comprehensive solution the
Sudanese government can go. The SPLA's inability to articulate what they
are fighting for is echoed in its approach to the peace process. In
erratic shifts in position, the SPLA has both accepted and then refused
regional attempts at peace-making, sometimes within the space of 48
hours.(34)

Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail accuses the United States
of pursuing a policy that prolongs the Sudanese war: "Your [i.e. the US]
policy will not lead to peace. It will lead to the continuation of war,
the suffering of the people, the loss of lives in the south ... This
war, this problem, will not be settled by fighting. It has to be settled
by political means. The government of Sudan is ready for that".(35)
America's provocative acts take place at a time when the there have been
significant positive political changes within Sudan itself. The former
Prime Minister, Sadiq al-Mahdi, himself ousted in 1989 by the present
government, and a pivotal rebel leader, was quoted by an April 2001
American fact-finding mission as saying that: "the United States has
been an obstacle to peace in Sudan and also to unity among the
opposition. The United States' policy has been a problem. He said that
Sudan is like a pregnant woman that is about to deliver and needs a
midwife to help the delivery. They all believe that the United States
could act as a midwife. They all accept this. But, the United States,
instead of helping deliver the baby, killed it..." The "Sudan Peace Act"
continues this process.

Humanitarian Assistance to Sudan: Operation Lifeline Sudan

The Act also seeks to by-pass the neutral Operation Lifeline Sudan
structures. We already have a clear indication of what this would
entail. In February 2000, because of unacceptable demands made upon them
by the SPLA, eleven international non-governmental aid organisations
were forced to leave southern Sudan. These NGOs included CARE, Oxfam,
Save the Children and Medecins Sans Frontieres. The SPLA had demanded
that all aid agencies active in southern Sudan sign a memorandum which
dictated SPLA control over their activities, and aid distribution, as
well as which Sudanese nationals the agencies employed, and which
stipulated a swath of "taxes" and charges for working in southern Sudan.
The NGOs involved handled about 75 percent of the humanitarian aid
entering southern Sudan.(36) The withdrawal of these NGOS directly
affected US$ 40 million worth of aid programs.(37) The expelled aid
agencies stated that one million southern Sudanese were at risk as a
result of the SPLA's decision to expel the NGOs.(38) The European Union
described the SPLA demands as a serious violation of humanitarian law
and suspended its substantial aid program to rebel-controlled areas.(39)
One can only imagine the uproar within Congress had the Sudanese
government cut the provision of humanitarian aid to southern Sudan by 75
percent. Such behaviour by the SPLA does not even rate a mention by
Congress. Not only has the SPLA severely restricted humanitarian
outreach within southern Sudan for political reasons, but the "Sudan
Peace Act" makes it even easier for the SPLA to engage in massive food
aid diversion.

Conclusion

The flaws of the "Sudan Peace Act" are there for all to see. The Act is
characterised by cynicism, misinformation and double standards. Worse
still it will make a peaceful solution of Sudan's long-running conflict
that much more difficult. The most constructive role that the U.S.
Congress could play with regard to the Sudanese conflict would be to
bring the SPLA to the negotiating table. Far from doing this, however,
Congress has sought to provide the SPLA, a group without an identifiable
political objective, with hundreds of millions of dollars in support -
dramatically reducing that group's inclination to negotiate in good
faith and in effect encouraging further conflict. There are other
contradictions. While professing deep concern about relief delivery in
southern Sudan, for example, the Act ignores the fact that the group it
is sponsoring has been guilty of diverting two-thirds of all relief
going into the areas it controls, was responsible for a suspension of 75
percent of humanitarian projects in southern Sudan by insisting on SPLA
control of the relief aid, and has repeatedly launched offensives within
areas that are already seriously famine and drought affected. The Act
claims to be concerned about war crimes and yet actively seeks to
sustain some of the conflict's worst abusers of human rights.

The image of the United States can only but suffer as the result of this
Act. It would appear that a group of legislators who are at best naïve
and at worst dogmatic religious fanatics, are at present driving
America's Sudan policy. In so doing they damage the reputation of the
United States within the international community.

Notes

1 "Developments in Sudan Favour National Reconciliation: Mahdi",
News Article by Agence France Presse, 25 December 1999. See, for
example, "Opposition Leader Predicts Solution to Sudan's Conflict", News
Article by PANA, 27 March 2000; "Sudanese Rebel Group to Enter Khartoum
Politics", News Article by Agence France Presse, 20 March 2000; and
"Mahdi's Withdrawal Dents Opposition Alliance", News Article by PANA, 25
March, 2000.
2 "Carter Says Wrong Time for Mideast Talks", News Article by
Reuters, 24 April 2001.
3 "Carter, Others Say US Has Faltered in Africa", 'The Boston
Globe', 8 December 1999. For more details of American support to the
SPLA
see "Ex-President Opposes Policy of Aiding Khartoum's Foes", The
Washington Times, 25 September 1997; "Sudan's American-aided
guerrillas", 'The Economist', 25 January 1997; "Sudan Accuses US of
Supplying Rebels with Mines", News Article by Xinhua, 21 January 1999;
"US flies in howitzers to subdue Sudan", 'Africa Analysis', No 290, 6
February 1998; "Albright Meets Sudan Rebels, Pledges US Support", News
Article by Reuters, 10 December 1997; "U.S. said to promise aid to
Sudanese rebel areas", News Article by Reuters, 2 June 1998.
4 See, for example, amongst many overtures: "Interview - Sudan
Wants to Bury Hatchet with US", News Article by Reuters, 20 May 1999;
"Sudan Wants Dialogue With US, Bashir Tells Envoy", News Article by
Reuters, 7 March 2000; "Sudan Wants Better Ties with US's Bush", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 2 February 2001 and "Sudan Welcomes
U.S. Peace Involvement but Urges Neutrality", News Article by Associated
Press, 28 May 2001.
5 See, for example, "U.S. House Backs Efforts to Aid Sudan", News
Article by Reuters, 13 June 2001; "Sudanese Rebels to Receive Dlrs 3
Million in Assistance", News Article by Associated Press, 25 May 2001,
and "U.S. Slates $3 Million for Sudan's Opposition", 'The Washington
Post', 25 May 2001.
6 Alex de Waal (Editor), 'Food and Power in Sudan', African
Rights, London, 1997, pp.5,7.
7 "Aid for Sudan Ending Up With SPLA: Relief Workers", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 21 July, 1998.
8 Vapensmuglerne I Sudan, 'Brennpunkt', NRK Television, Norway, 17
November 1999.
9 See, for example, the Norwegian People's Aid website at
http://www.npaid.org/about_npa/funding.html
10 Summary of World Broadcasts, BBC, 15 December 1997.
11 See, for example, "Annan Calls on Sudan's SPLM Leader to Sign
Ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999.
12 'Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan', UN Special Rapporteur
Gerhart Baum, United Nations General Assembly, New York, A/56/150, 7
September 2001.
13 "Sudan's Government Calls On International Community to Push for
Cease-Fire", News Article by Associated Press, 5 June 2001.
14 "Sudan: Peace Talks Continue While SPLA Claim New Victory", UN
Integrated Regional Information Network, Nairobi, 29 September 2000.
15 Bona Malwal, "Open Letter to John Garang from Bona Malwal",
'Sudan Democratic Gazette', May 2000.
16 "Humanitarian Organizations Oppose Plan Providing Food to
Sudanese Rebels", Press Release by InterAction, the American Council for
Voluntary International Action, Washington-DC, 30 November, 1999.
17 "Rights Group Warns US Against Feeding Sudan Rebels", News
Article by Reuters on 14 December, 1999.
18 "Misguided Relief to Sudan", Editorial, 'The New York Times', 6
December 1999.
19 John Prendergast, 'Crisis Response: Humanitarian Band-Aids in
Sudan and Somalia', Pluto Press, London, 1997, p.77.
20 Ibid, p.72.
21 "Seeking Friends in the West, Sudan Tempers its Islamic Zeal",
News Article by Associated Press, 13 July 2002.
22 A significant example of Khartoum's effort to accommodate the
interests of Sudan's non-Muslim southerners was the 1991 exemption of
the largely non-Muslim southern Sudan from sharia law. Even the Clinton
Administration has had to admit that sharia law was not applied in the
south. The American State Department's 'Sudan Country Report on Human
Rights Practices', for example, has stated: "Sudan's 1991 Criminal Act,
based on Shari'a law, (prescribes) specific "hudud" punishments. The
Government officially exempts the 10 Southern States, whose population
is mostly non-Muslim, from parts of the 1991 Criminal Act. But the Act
permits the possible future application of Shari'a law in the south, if
the local state assemblies so decide." (See, 'Sudan Country Report on
Human Rights Practices for 1995', Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor, United States Department of State, Washington-DC, February 1996.)
23 House of Commons Hansard Written Answers, 18 October 2001.
24 The Speech of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Sudan delivered to the Third Committee of the General
Assembly, 8 November 2001, New York.
25 'Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan', UN Special Rapporteur
Gerhart Baum, United Nations General Assembly, New York, A/56/150, 7
September 2001.
26 "Christians Face Difficulties in Arab Khartoum", 'The New York
Times', 5 April 1998.
27 See, "Sudan offers South secession", News Article by BBC, 22
February 1999; "Southern secession better than more war: Sudan's
President", News Article by Agence France Presse, 22 February 1999;
"Sudan Says Happy for South to Secede", News Article by Reuters, 7 May
1998.
28 "Khartoum Urges Rebels to 'Stop Fighting and Talk'", News
Article by Agence France Presse 5 June 2001
29 See, "Referendum agreed at Sudan peace talks", News Article by
BBC World on 7 May 1998, and "SPLA plays down deal on Referendum in
southern Sudan", News Article by BBC, 7 May 1998.
30 See, "Sudanese government declares ceasefire", News Article by
BBC World, 5 August 1999; "Sudanese government declares comprehensive
ceasefire", News Article by Associated Press, 5 August 1999; "Sudan
Government to Observe Ceasefire Despite SPLA Rejection", News Article by
Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999;"EU Welcomes Cease-Fire in Sudan",
News Article by Xinhua, 20 August 1999; "Annan welcomes ceasefire", News
Article by UN Integrated Regional Information Network, 11 August 1999;
"Annan hails Sudan cease-fire allowing aid to flow", News Article by
Reuters, 6 August 1999; "Annan calls on Sudan's SPLM leader to sign
ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 August 1999;
"Sudanese rebels reject peace plan", News Article by BBC World, 30
August 1999; "Sudanese Rebels Reject Government Cease-Fire", News
Article by Reuters, 5 August 1999.
31 See, for example, "Sudan's Government in Favour of Ceasefire in
18-year Civil War", News Article by Agence France Presse, 22 April 2001
and "Government "Ready for a Ceasefire", News Article by United Nations
Integrated Regional Information Network, 15 May 2001.
32 "Sudan Backs Combination of Arab and African Peace Drives", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 24 October 1999.
33 See, for example, "Sudan calls for Western Pressure on southern
Rebels to Accept Ceasefire", News Article by Agence France Presse, 26
April 2000; 'US Catholic Clerics Urged to Pressurise Garang into
Accepting Cease-Fire', News Article by Sudan News Agency, 27 March 2001;
"Britain Can Pressurize Rebels to Realize Cease-Fire, Sudanese
Diplomat", News Article by SUNA, 26 February 2001; "Sudanese Government
Welcomes Carter's Initiative to End the War in southern Sudan", News
Article by ArabicNews.com, 26 April 2001.
34 See, "Sudanese Rebels Reject Peace Plan", News Article by BBC
News Online Network, 30 August 1999; "Sudanese Rebels Snub Libyan-
Egyptian Mediation Effort", News Article by Agence France Presse, 30
August 1999; "Sudanese Rebel Leader Supports Peace Plan: Egypt", News
Article by Agence France Presse, 31 August 1999; and "Sudanese Rebels
Say They Can't Commit to Egyptian-Libyan Peace Drive", News Article by
Agence France Presse, 14 May 2001; "Sudanese Rebels Reject
Reconciliation Accord", News Article by Associated Press, 29 November
1999.
35 "Interview - Sudan Says US Harming Peace Prospects", News
Article by Reuters, 25 October 1999.
36 "Rights Group Urges More Talks on Sudan Relief", News Article by
Associated Press, 8 March 2000.
37 "Seven Aid Agencies Urge Renewed Negotiations for Relief to
Southern Sudan", News Article by Associated Press, 1 March 2000.
38 "Expelled Aid Agencies Say Million at Risk in Sudan", News
Article by Reuters on 1 March 2000.
39 "European Commission Statement on Southern Sudan", Statement by
European Union, 29 February 2000.