Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on September 11, 2004 at 01:35:53: EST (-5 GMT)

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, DARFUR AND "GENOCIDE":
PLACING VOTES BEFORE PEACE IN SUDAN

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 10 September 2004

American Secretary-of-State Colin Powell's decision to describe the
conflict in Darfur as a "genocide" (1) is set to damage prospects for
peace in the Sudan. This is for several reasons. This action will damage
Sudan's faith in the Bush Administration as an honest broker in securing
peace in Sudan, either in southern Sudan or Darfur itself. For
Washington to chose to put electoral expediency - diverting media
attention away from the Iraq fiasco and pandering to anti-Sudanese and
anti-Arab pressure group politics - before the truth of the situation in
Darfur will dramatically undermine its reputation.

The American declaration on genocide jars with other, more trusted,
positions on the issue. Mr Jean-Hervé Bradol, head of Médecins Sans
Frontières, for example, has stated that the use of the term genocide is
"inappropriate". Mr Bradol said: "Our teams have not seen evidence of
the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group." (2) Mr
Bradol's observations echoed those made in April 2004 by Dr Mercedes
Taty, the deputy emergency director of Médecins Sans Frontières. Dr Taty
worked with 12 expatriate doctors and 300 Sudanese nationals in field
hospitals set up in the towns of Mornay, El Genina and Zalinge in
Darfur. Asked about claims of genocide, her answer was blunt: "I don't
think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this
conflict. Not at all. This can be a semantic discussion, but
nevertheless, there is no systematic target - targeting one ethnic group
or another one. It doesn't mean either that the situation in Sudan isn't
extremely serious by itself." Dr Taty also questioned claims of "ethnic
cleansing". (3)

Washington's hypocrisy is all too obvious.

The Bush Administration's previous commitment to ending the long-running
civil war in southern Sudan is now also being called into question. It
had been assumed that the Sudan policy of the Bush White House differed
from the Clinton Administration's active efforts to militarily and
politically destabilise Khartoum. Former President Jimmy Carter, for
example, has clearly criticised American obstruction throughout the
1990s of attempts to peacefully resolve the Sudanese civil war:

"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." (4)

Choosing to work for peace rather than war the Bush White House tested
the Sudanese government's commitment to ending the war in the south and
found Khartoum as good as its word. From 2002 onwards Washington's
constructive engagement in Sudan saw the unfolding of a remarkably
successful peace process, one that has resulted in unprecedented steps
towards a comprehensive peace agreement.

It would appear that having realised that Washington would not be able
to reap the electoral benefits of being seen to have brought peace to
southern Sudan, because the final peace agreement may not be signed
until after the election - and in any instance the Darfur crisis has
reduced whatever political advantage there may have been in having
secured a solitary foreign policy success - the Bush Administration is
now choosing to play up the Darfur crisis in an attempt to divert media
coverage of the continuing and deepening Iraq crisis.

In so doing Washington has caused considerable suspicion as to ulterior
motives. It has not gone unnoticed, for example, that the genocide
declaration has echoed one of the ways in which the Clinton White House
obstructed peace in the 1990s which was by interfering with peace talks
between the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and Khartoum. As one
example, the Clinton Administration chose to impose comprehensive
economic sanctions on Sudan in November 1997 just as the government and
rebels had started a key round of peace talks in Nairobi. Doubtlessly
bolstered by this American signal, SPLA leader John Garang, commenting
on these talks in Nairobi, stated that "We 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." Secretary
Powell's decision to describe events in Darfur as "genocide" starkly
mirrors the Clinton White House's timing on imposing economic sanctions.
The Government and the two Darfur rebel groups are in the midst of
crucial peace negotiations in Nigeria, attempting to resolve the world's
most serious humanitarian crisis. These talks, brokered by the African
Union, are aimed at resolving the 18-month old conflict in Darfur.
Agence France Presse has described how the rebel groups have backtracked
on earlier promises made to the Nigerian president, the African Union
and the UN "to push forward with negotiations". (5) Coming as it did in
the midst of these talks, Powell's comments have made the rebels even
more intransigent. (6)

In a further attempt to boost continuing media coverage of Darfur
Washington has also sought UN sanctions to interfere with Sudanese oil
exports. Given that the issue of wealth-sharing - specifically of oil
revenues - between north and southern Sudan has been so pivotal to the
delicate Sudanese peace process, American attempts to cut away the only
real way open to the Sudanese people of developing themselves and
building on peace in Sudan clearly demonstrates crass misjudgement in
yet another foreign policy issue by the Bush Administration. (7)

In putting American votes before Sudanese peace, in both western and
southern Sudan, Washington is playing a very dangerous game indeed.

Notes

1 "Powell Says Killings in Sudan Amount to Genocide", News Article
by Associated Press, 10 September 2004.
2 "Thousands die in Sudan as world defines genocide", 'The
Financial Times' (London), 5 July 2004.
3 "Violence in the Sudan Displaces Nearly 1 Million. An Aid Worker
Describes the Gravity of the Humanitarian Crisis", News Article by
MSNBC, 16 April 2004.
4 'Carter, Others Say US Has Faltered in Africa', 'The Boston
Globe, 8 December 1999.
5 "Sudan Peace Talks Deadlocked as Rebels Backtrack on Agenda",
News Article by Agence France-Presse, 24 August 2004.
6 See, for example, "Darfur Peace Talks Stagnate", News Article by
Reuters, 9 September 2004.
7 "U.S. targets Sudan's oil", The New York Times, 9 September
2004.