Press Release/Commentary by ESPAC posted on October 05, 2004 at 02:08:06: EST (-5 GMT)

U.S. DARFUR POLICY SLEEP-WALKING WORLD INTO ANOTHER IRAQ-TYPE CATASTROPHE

The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Date of Publication: 4 October 2004

'Sudan Vision' Newspaper Interview with ESPAC Director, Professor David Hoile - 26 September 2004

"United States Darfur policy ... is sleep-walking the international
community into another Iraq-type catastrophe."

QUESTION: The first question must be where are we on Darfur?

ANSWER: There is a grave humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The war was
deliberately started by the rebels and the government's response has
seen things spiral out of control - perhaps, probably, as envisaged by
the rebels. The situation is now being stabilised. The humanitarian
crisis has been addressed. Attempts, however, to reach a political
solution have been complicated by a range of factors - including, as is
so often the case with Sudan, misjudgments in American foreign policy.
Darfur has additionally been caught up in the propaganda war that has
long been a feature of international perceptions of Sudan.

QUESTION: Where does the American Secretary-of-State's recent statement
that the events in Darfur constitute "genocide" fit into this picture?

ANSWER: Secretary Powell's comments were both disappointing and
unforgivable. They were disappointing for several reasons. They have
made a humanitarian disaster considerably worse. Firstly, as will become
obvious in the weeks and months ahead - his assertion is simply untrue.
Events in Darfur may be many things, they have been a humanitarian
disaster, but they are not genocide. Reputable international observers
such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose credibility easily eclipses that
of any American Administration in an election year, have challenged and
continue to challenge the assertion of genocide. The comments are
unforgivable because although Mr Powell must know the claim to be false.
An American government has once again saddled Sudan with allegations
that are grave, unsustainable and propagandistic. It is clear that the
USA has cried wolf once too often on equally serious issues both on
international issues and on Sudan. The Iraq weapons of mass destruction
scandal continues to damage American and British credibility. On Sudan,
Washington's claims of Sudanese involvement in terrorism have long been
queried by reputable observers such as former US president Jimmy Carter,
and undermined by the now well-documented fact that the United States
turned down Sudanese offers in 1996 to extradite Osama bin Laden to
Washington. Similarly, the 1998 American cruise missile attack on a
"weapons of mass destruction" installation that turned out to be an
aspirin factory exposed further sensationalistic claims about Sudan.

QUESTION: How do you account for the American position?

ANSWER: There are several factors which have probably come together, but
everything is overshadowed by the American elections. The election is
going to be very close and Iraq will be the pivotal electoral issue.
Iraq is a disaster which is going to get much worse as election day
approaches. In this context one can see Darfur in very simple terms.
Darfur is the Bush Administration's al-Shifa, today's "Wag the Dog"
story. We all remember that President Clinton attacked Khartoum with
cruise missiles citing claims of weapons of mass destruction in a
desperate attempt to divert media attention away from the Monica
Lewinsky fiasco. President Bush is using Darfur in much the same way to
spin US media attention away from Iraq. Every column inch in American
newspapers on Darfur is one less on Iraq. Every minute of air time on
American television or radio on Darfur is one less on Iraq. The Bush
Administration knew that if it labelled the situation in Darfur a
genocide there would be even more media focus on Darfur. At the same
time the Americans have derailed the vital Darfur peace talks in
Nigeria, encouraging the Darfur rebels to go back on previously agreed
positions. Put simply, Sudanese lives are being lost, and will continue
to be lost because of American electoral theatre. There are further,
equally disappointing, analogies. We are seeing US policy being made by
pressure groups. It is now generally accepted that the Bush
Administration's Iraq disaster was US foreign policy designed by neo-
conservative pressure groups and think-tanks. There is no shortage of
short-sighted and confrontational anti-Sudan and anti-Islamic pressure
groups advocating similarly ill-thought through policies towards
Khartoum. You may recall that the British government set up the Butler
Commission to examine the many intelligence failures that preceded the
British involvement in the Iraq war. The Butler Report specifically
warned against "the risk of 'group think' - the development of a
'prevailing wisdom'". Many people now fear that the United States Darfur
policy based on "prevailing wisdom" and "group think" is sleep-walking
the international community into another Iraq-type catastrophe.

QUESTION: What is the significance of the new UN Security Council
Resolution?

ANSWER: The only real consequence of this resolution has been to
similarly encourage the intransigence of the Darfur rebels. A general
reading of positions within the Security Council is that meaningful
sanctions are unlikely and would be counter-productive. I am sure the
Government of Sudan knows what must be done and is moving as fast as it
can in the critical area of security in Darfur. Khartoum has already
addressed and streamlined humanitarian access issues. The resolution was
ultimately an extension of the American electoral theatre I mentioned
before. The resolution served to keep Darfur in the American media.

QUESTION: Would you agree that the UN seems to have held contradictory
positions with regard to Darfur?

ANSWER: Yes, both on Darfur and Sudan specifically and on American
foreign policy in general. Annan's ill-judged comments about Darfur and
Rwanda began the media frenzy that led to the genocide claims. Perhaps
Annan continued to be troubled by his own clear inaction during the
horrific Rwandan genocide. Some time after his comments he then said
that there was no genocide in Darfur. Various UN officials have also
confused us all with contradictory statements about Darfur. It is also
surprising to hear Annan recently declare the American invasion of Iraq
as illegal while at the same time acting as a cheer leader for US
efforts to impose another anti-Sudan security council resolution as a
possible prelude to yet more disastrous and ill-considered
interventionism.

QUESTION: Where is the British government in all this?

ANSWER: I have no doubt that the British have by far the best
understanding of Sudan and Sudanese affairs. Their close association
with the United States is both good and bad. Bad because their
relationship can sometimes drastically restrict their room for manoeuvre
- even when they may know things are deeply questionable, Iraq being one
example. Good because, nevertheless, I am sure Britain acts as a brake
on Washington's more reckless and ill-thought out instincts. I would
like to believe, I do believe, that Britain continues to provide the
American government with a degree of balance, caution and insight on the
situation in Sudan which would otherwise be absent. Britain's official
position with regard to the "genocide" question, that it is not
important to reach any conclusions at the moment, is disappointing. It
either is genocide in which Britain and the international community must
act or it is not, in which case those who are claiming genocide in
Darfur for propaganda reasons must be exposed and criticised for the
damage they are causing.

QUESTION: What is the British position on sanctions?

ANSWER: I think the British are very aware of how ineffective sanctions
often are. It is also clear that sanctions so often hurt the very people
they are meant to be helping.

QUESTION: The European Union seems to be following the United States on
Darfur. Why is this?

ANSWER: There are several reasons. Several key European countries,
Germany and even the new government in Spain, quite simply have no
stomach for another fight with the United States on foreign policy
issues. They have exhausted themselves on Iraq. The Iraq war split
Europe down the middle and has left deep and open wounds. European
"pragmatists" would say that there is nothing to be gained by a further
confrontation over the issue of Sudan - even though they must be aware
that, just as with Iraq, Washington's perspective is skewed and
potentially disastrous. Some European analysts would argue - foolishly -
that Sudan is marginal to European interests.

QUESTION: What is your reading of Germany's position on Darfur and
Sudan?

ANSWER: The German position is interesting and not a little
contradictory. Having taken a very hard line against the Bush
Administration on American policy towards Iraq, Berlin seems however to
be accepting and echoing similarly flawed and confrontational American
policy towards Sudan. Every single German criticism of American policy
towards Iraq can be made about Washington's Sudan policy. Germany is
obviously still very sensitive to its own recent record as a country
that actually did carry out a genocide. We have also seen clear attempts
at disinformation within Germany. German newspapers, for example, have
carried ludicrous claims that Khartoum has used chemical weapons in
Darfur - claims that even the Americans have agreed were untrue.
Germany's position is also somewhat questionable for another reason.
Several leaders of the two Darfur rebel movements, especially the
Justice and Equality Movement, live in Germany and run their activities
from that country. JEM is an ultra-Islamist group and has been involved
in the murder of hundreds of policemen and civilians in Darfur - in
actions not dissimilar to events in Iraq. Al-Qaeda would presumably not
be allowed to live and operate from Germany. Why is JEM allowed to do
so? Murdering policemen whether in London, Iraq or Darfur is an act of
terrorism. Why is the German government providing sanctuary for Islamist
terrorists and those who organise terrorism?

QUESTION: What has the impact of Darfur been on the Naivasha process?

ANSWER: While I hope that the Naivasha peace process is swiftly
finalised, it has undoubtedly been destabilised by Powell's "genocide"
claims. These claims have followed previous American flip-flopping on
the issue. First, when they saw electoral advantage from Naivasha they
said there was no link between Naivasha and Darfur, then they said the
two were linked and now there are American calls for the Naivasha
process to be nevertheless be concluded. To label one of the two key
partners to Naivasha as a "genocidal" regime can only but have negative
consequences.

QUESTION: What impact do you see the Darfur situation having on the
region?

ANSWER: This is perhaps one of the most worrying aspects of the crisis.
Given all the factors which make up the Darfur situation my personal
fear is the Afghanisation of the region. There are already several stark
similarities to Afghan, terrain, independent tribes, Islamist politics,
civil wars and weak governments in the Sahel region and an abundance of
weapons to name but a few. To this has been added what can be seen as
American interference. The United States seems to have learnt very
little from either Afghanistan in the 1980s or now. Washington is
presently encouraging ultra-Islamist gunmen - in the form of JEM - to
keep their pressure up on a Khartoum government that JEM and Dr Turabi's
Popular Congress seeks to overthrow for being too close to Washington,
for having made too many concessions to John Garang and the SPLA and for
having liberalised the Islamic model initially imposed by Dr Turabi.
Washington perhaps thinks that it can control the Darfur rebels. The
simple fact is that this did not happen with the Afghan mujahedeen in
the 1980s - and it will not happen with the Darfur mujahedeen in 2004.
Such naivete will backfire on the Americans. Similarly Washington
thought that the Shia would somehow see the American government as
saviours in Iraq. The reality is all too clear. The Shia have been
amongst the most militant forces against the American involvement in
that country. Perhaps Washington thinks they will be greeted as heroes
by Muslim Zagahawa tribesmen in Darfur. The reality will be also
different. Of equal concern is the fact that al-Qaeda are very active in
the Sahel, including Chad. They are present in sizeable numbers on the
Chad/Sudan border. Expelled from Sudan by this government in 1996, it is
not unimaginable that al-Qaeda may well be making common cause with
their Islamist brothers-in-arms in JEM against Khartoum. Any
destabilisation of the Khartoum government serves their purpose. Any
foreign - and particularly western - military intervention or presence
in Darfur will attract foreign Islamist fighters to Darfur just as it
attracted them to Iraq. And it will not just be Sudan that will be
weakened or targeted. Neighbouring countries are even more vulnerable.
Quite how and why Washington is encouraging the weakening of Khartoum in
the face of the ultra-Islamist threat posed by JEM, the Popular Congress
and others is very puzzling.

QUESTION: As an observer what are your recommendations to the Government
of Sudan?

ANSWER: Firstly, they must conclude the Naivasha peace agreement
settling the 50 year-old civil war fought in southern Sudan. Secondly,
continue to positively address the grave humanitarian crisis in Darfur,
to address the security issues that continue to overshadow developments
in Darfur and to press on with a political solution to the Darfur
conflict. The ceasefire has to be effectively monitored by an increased
and better supported African Union force.

QUESTION: There are many claims about Eritrean involvement in the Darfur
crisis. What role, if any, do you think Eritrea is playing?

ANSWER: There is no doubt that Asmara is actively and negatively
involved in Darfur. Eritrea under its present government is a rogue
state that has sought to destabilise all of its neighbours. It has been
to war with Ethiopia and Yemen, it has sought confrontation with
Djibouti and it has provide military assistance and sanctuary to various
Sudanese rebel groups - most recently the insurgents in Darfur.

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS

Professor David Hoile is the Director of the London-based European-
Sudanese Public Affairs Council. He has followed Sudanese affairs for
almost a decade. He is the author of "Images of Sudan: Case Studies in
Propaganda and Misinformation" (2003), "Farce Majeure: The Clinton
Administration's Sudan Policy 1993-2000" (2000), and editor of "The
Search for Peace in the Sudan: A Chronology of the Sudanese Peace
Process 1989-2002" (2002). Dr Hoile is a member of the Royal African
Society and a fellow and member of several international relations
institutes in Britain.