US Taking Hard Line On Sudan Peace Talks

By Kevin J. Kelley in New York, The East African (Nairobi), 9 September 2002

THE UNITED States is backing up its appeals for resumption of Sudan’s peace talks with threats to punish the Khartoum government if an end to the country’s civil war is not negotiated within the next six months.

Key members of the US Congress, with the apparent backing of the White House, have agreed on a proposed set of sanctions that would deny all international financial aid to Sudan’s Islamist government and provide $300 million in aid over the next three years to the country’s main opposition alliance.

A Bill authorising the new penalties is expected to be formally unveiled in the coming days and could win approval from both the US House and Senate within the next two weeks.

The new proposal actually amends another Sudan sanctions Bill that has been pending in Congress for several months.

That earlier measure had won overwhelming support in the House but had not been taken up by the Senate, mainly because of strong opposition to a section of the Bill that would prevent foreign oil companies operating in Sudan from raising funds in US capital markets. The new sanctions plan drops that provision, which was opposed by both the White House and Wall Street.

But the new Bill includes four initiatives that one lobbyist describes as hammers to be used against the Khartoum government.

In addition to requiring US delegates to veto all new World Bank and IMF aid to Sudan, the Bill instructs the State Department to downgrade diplomatic relations with Khartoum.

According to a source familiar with the wording of the unpublished Bill, it further calls for unspecified US efforts to deny Sudan access to revenues needed to exploit its oil reserves.

The $300 million in proposed aid to the opposition National Democratic Alliance is said to be intended for peaceful purposes, but the Bill does not explicitly prohibit US military assistance to the Alliance, which includes the guerrilla force that has been battling the Khartoum government for the past 19 years.

Sudan can avoid these punishments only if it reaches a peace agreement with the rebels within six months of the Bill’s enactment.

A broad consensus in favour of this approach coalesced in Washington following the Sudanese government’s decision last week to suspend peace talks. Khartoum announced it was halting its steps toward finalising the Machakos Protocol due to the rebels’ recent capture of the strategic town of Torit in southern Sudan.

Khartoum’s action has frustrated US lawmakers, who hoped that a permanent peace deal might soon be brokered on the basis of a tentative agreement reached in negotiations in the Kenyan town of Machakos.

Some Sudan specialists in Congress were also enraged by last week’s report in The Washington Post that Al Qaeda has shipped significant quantities of gold to Sudan for safekeeping.

The government has claimed it is co-operating in the war on terrorism, but the reports that Sudan is the destination for Al Qaeda resources makes it difficult for anyone to believe they are sincere, says Republican Senator Sam Brownback, an influential figure on Africa issues. The government must stop supporting Al Qaeda or face the consequences of supporting terrorism. Khartoum denies that it is becoming a financial hub for Osama bin Laden’s organisation, and it has reiterated its willingness to co-operate with the US in combating terrorism.

The State Department, meanwhile, expects that Sudan will return to the bargaining table, thus making the new sanctions threat irrelevant.

Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, said in Nairobi last week that the Sudanese government had assured him of its intention to resume peace talks. But if that does not prove to be the case, there is a strong likelihood that the US will end the thaw with Sudan that had been developing since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The new sanctions Bill should prove to Khartoum that the US is deeply committed to the cause of a just peace in Sudan, says Nina Shea, director of the Washington-based Centre for Religious Freedom, a non-governmental organisation that has lobbied hard for a tougher US policy on Sudan.