Happy One Year Anniversary of the CPA/Referendum!

Credit: Pete Muller

To celebrate this momentous occassion that signified the end to a longstanding violent conflict with the North, the US thought the most appropriate gift was to give South Sudan a load of new weapons......

After adding South Sudan to the list of countries which the US can transfer weapons to, Barack Obama said this in his memorandom:


 “the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Republic of South Sudan will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace”. (ST)

Emphasis on South Sudan now being the US' guard dog in East Africa...... congratulations?

As happy as I am on this day, I can't help but think that there are some little cynical weasels out there who are rubbing their hand together as their idea of a pre-failed state (also here and here) may have come true with today's line up of news.......

- Murle revenge attack on Lou Nuer kills 23

- South Sudan's rebels elect new leader

- Gun fight between an SS MP's family and their in laws injure four

- Cattle Herders richer than govt. officials

- Lake state MP to be investigated over child abduction

I'm probably being irrational in my beliefs, and I can't really argue against their points, but I can't help but still hold a lot of hope for South Sudan. Being there, with the spirit of the people, one can't help but think that these are merely short-term problems that will be overshadowed by the long path of success in South Sudan's future. 

South Sudan Oyeee!

Taliban Tweet Battle....yo

The following is an exchange between the Taliban spokesman (spox), Abdulqaqhar Balkhi, and the International Security Assistance Force's twitter-guy. From the Guardian:

ISAF: "Re: Taliban spox on #Kabul attack: the outcome is inevitable. Question is how much longer will            terrorist put innocent Afghans in harm's way?" 

Taliban: "@ISAFmedia i dnt knw.u hve bn pttng thm n 'harm's way' fr da pst 10 yrs. Razd whole vllgs n mrkts.n stil hv da nrve to tlk bout 'harm's way" 

ISAF: "Really, @abalkhi? UNAMA reported 80% of civilians causalities are caused by insurgent (your) activities http://goo.gl/FylwU" 

Taliban: @ISAFmedia UNAMA is an entity of whom? mine or yours?

Damn.


That was a few weeks ago. They're still fighting today:




ISAF: 11 children among dead. Noticed @abalkhi didn't tweet this one.http://ow.ly/6GQWH


But who ever is in charge of the ISAF twitter page is fully engaged, as seen in today's exchange with  Joshuafoust

h/t: Harith Ramli

Khartoum: "Take your carrot and shove it!"(Updated - I was wrong)

Alex Thurston on Christian Science Monitor (with some editing by me):

Yesterday President Barack Obama released a statement praising a peace
agreement in Abyei, another Sudanese border region, and condemning the
violence in Southern Kordofan.....

"...With a ceasefire in Southern Kordofan, alongside the agreement to deploy peacekeepers to Abyei, we can get the peace process back on track. But without these actions, the roadmap for better relations with the Government of Sudan cannot be carried forward, which will only deepen Sudan’s isolation in the international community....."

This statement highlights one of the biggest potential leverage points Washington has with Khartoum: the “carrot” of normalized relations. Yet as author Bec Hamilton wrote on Twitter, the perceived value of this “carrot” may be disappearing: “That’s no longer leverage since Khartoum doesn’t believe it will ever happen (and they are probably right).”

Read the rest of the post, he raises an interesting question at the end of it.

Setting aside my disdain of Khartoum's current military policy, I think that they have every right to no longer trust those American carrots. I've previously discussed the failings of enticing Khartoum with the prospects of removing it from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. Insignificant Block also has a post covering more examples of American Carrots that lie.

The track record of the carrots is basically; the US asks Khartoum to do something and promises to normalise relation if Khartoum completed the task. Khartoum does that thing. The US doesn't normalise relations and decides to up the ante on what it wants from Khartoum. While Im totally in support of getting your carrot's worth, there really is only so far you can push it.

With US carrots becoming more and more redundant, China's role has become more significant than ever. That is why I don't think this is a fantastic idea:

"The United States should press China to rescind its invitation for Bashir to visit China and dispatch a senior administration official to develop joint diplomacy in support of a peace deal, including pressures and incentives to leverage that agreement."

Guess who? Yup..... .....Prendergraaaaaaaaaaast!!!!

At this point, if China is willing to do what it can to bring an end to this conflict it can't risk associating itself with the US camp.

Update:

He also reiterated that the successful experience of Sino-Sudanese relations should be attributed to mutual respect and non-intervention in each other's internal affairs.

"China does not intervene in the internal affairs of others. The success of Sino-Sudanese cooperation has encouraged African countries to search for their real and loyal partner."(China Daily)

Oh how naïve I was to think China would act otherwise.

OK...New plan. Give Prendergrast, Clooney, the Machine Gun Preacher and Ninja in Afghanistan anti-air missels to shoot down Bashir's plane on the way back.

Tomorrow: Sticks.....can that also be shoved?

1-800-Genocide

I came across this post on the Enough! Project blog:

"The condemnation expressed by U.S. government officials over the recent violence in Sudan must translate into meaningful action toward those most culpable, to force them to rethink their calculations. Call the White House at 1-800-GENOCIDE and urge Obama to impose consequences against the government of President Bashir. Follow these easy steps:
1. Dial 1-800-GENOCIDE to connect to the White House
2. State your name and which state you are from
3. Urge President Obama to impose serious consequences on Khartoum: Expand sanctions, freeze the assets of key Sudanese leaders, investigate war crimes, and increase civilian protection"

Now Im not quite sure how to react to this as I am totally flabbergasted by the concept of a citizen's direct hotline to the executive government office. If this is actually a thing, then I am quite impressed. However, a part of me feels like this is some grand joke that the White House formulated to relieve itself of the pressure put on it by civil society. Like when a girl gives a fake phone number to guy to avoid the awkwardness and potential conflict arising from a straight up rejection. Point 3 seems to suggest that you get to talk to Obama......Now I imagine that is not true, but would be pretty awsome. Just like Kagame's heavy personal usage of social networking media to communicate with his citizens (link/link).

Devaluing the state sponsors of terrorism list

"President Obama told Sudan that if it allows a politically sensitive referendum to go ahead in January, and abides by the results, the United States will move to take the country off its list of state sponsors of terrorism as early as next July, administration officials said Sunday." NYT

This is a component of the US' package of incentives for North Sudan to discourage it from any naughtiness for the upcoming referendum. It is also an indication of how stupid and arbitrary the list of state sponsors of terrorism is. I mean, if your willing to take a country off the list simply because it cooperates with you on something completely unrelated to why you put them on the list in the first place, it seriously devalues the list. Would you take a pedophile off the sex-offenders list just because he starts recycling?

I imagine the War on Terror is of greater value to US foreign policy than whatever happens in this big ol' African country. So why is it so easy for the US to offer taking Sudan off the list then? Could it possibly be because the US thinks that Sudan doesn't actually deserve to still be on that list? Well lets look at what the State Department has to say:

"The Sudanese government continued to pursue counterterrorism operations directly involving threats to U.S. interests and personnel in Sudan......[An assessment of the hardliners in Sudan] reflected disappointment that Sudan’s cooperation has not resulted in its removal from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Despite this, there was no indication that the Sudanese government will curtail its current level of counterterrorism cooperation despite bumps in the overall bilateral relationship."
"The Sudanese government has also worked hard to disrupt foreign fighters from using Sudan as a logistics base and transit point for terrorists going to Iraq. However, gaps remain in the Sudanese government’s knowledge of these individuals and its ability to identify and capture them."
"There was no reliable information to corroborate long-standing allegations that the Government of Sudan was supporting the LRA in 2009."

Hmmm.....So it seems the biggest reason for Sudan to remain on the list is that it has gaps in its ability to identify and capture terrorist? (seriously, read the whole thing.....it is ridiculous)

Now what about the argument that Sudan is still on the list because of its hand in Darfur? Well, if that is in fact the reason, then why is it that this incentive has been moved away and unlinked from a "resolution of the violence in the Darfur"? That just makes it worst. That's like telling the molested child that he isn't getting justice because the pedophile has recycled a lot of stuff.

What about when Sudan does do something to help the War on Terror? In '94 it extradited Carlos the Jackal, then in '96 it expelled Bin Laden and yet even after that show of support and before any further terrorist sponsoring act, the US still kept Sudan on the list, crippled its economy and bombed its capital (more on this here) (also, a lot more points to be made on the misuse of the list, e.g. the case of Korea)

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I would love more than a peaceful referendum, but I don't think that
1) The state sponsors of terrorism list should be used for anything other than discouraging countries from sponsoring terrorism

2) Pedophiles should get to run free just because they decide to recycle

UPDATE:

“This proposal from [Kerry] does not matter,” NCP communication officer Rabi Abdel-Atti told the Monitor. “The two sides are already engaged in continuous discussions, and the negotiations are proceeding. We don’t understand what outside proposals have to do with anything.”

The US offer did, though, leave much off the table. US officials have so far made clear to the regime that full US sanctions will not be lifted as long as the ongoing conflict in Darfur remains unresolved.
Because of this, the new proposal offers little economic benefit to Khartoum, especially in relation to the vast southern resources it is being pressured to surrender, according to Bayless Parsley, an Africa analyst for Austin-based global intelligence company STRATFOR.

SOURCE

US diplomacy in Sudan

Dave Eggers and John Prendergast have publish and op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled
In Sudan, War is Around the Corner

The article pretty much stems from Scott Gration's comments on the US' lack of leverage/pressure in Sudan to ensure a peaceful referendum.

"But we do have leverage. The peace in Sudan is one the United States “owns.” Developing a more robust package of carrots and sticks — rolled out multilaterally when possible, unilaterally if necessary — would strengthen America’s diplomatic hand, not weaken it."

Ignoring the fact that they just said the US "owns" the peace in Sudan (because I really don't know and don't want to know what they meant by that), the suggestions of carrots and sticks that the writers provide include:

The sticks
"...placing sanctions on key ruling party officials, blocking debt relief from the International Monetary Fund, supporting International Criminal Court arrest warrants...tightening the United Nations arms embargo and providing further support to the south."

The carrot
"If — and only if — true peace comes to Sudan, we could offer conditional, one-year suspensions of the International Criminal Court warrants and normalization of relations between Khartoum and Washington."

Whilst most of these seem reasonable and is typical of most 'diplomatic' strategies, the main problem I have with their suggestions are those pertinent to the ICC. This is simply because the US has failed to re-sign and ratify the Rome Statute, simply because it fears its own citizens being prosecuted (though there are other arguments for this).
So, legally, the US can only go so far as providing strong words of "support" to the warrant, providing legal advice and/or discovery of documents . Support which doesn't have enough clout to be considered a stick. This isn't a rebel leader in an ICC member state, this is the president of a non-member. So unless the US wants to throw in all its chips and intervene to overthrow another state leader, "support" for warrants is not really going to add up to much. And when did the US gain the ability to "offer conditional, one-year suspension of the International Criminal Court warrants"?! Is this a bluff? Do they think that Khartoum will not realise that they are throwing political weight they don't actually have? Or were they hoping that the ICC will back them up on this? Because the ICC should realise, by doing so, they are destroying the credibility of their warrants and their overall credibility and legitimacy....put simply, they become the US' bitch.
Furthermore, why would anyone agree to a conditional one year suspension?!
"Brilliant! Il let there be peace just so I can enjoy a years' worth of freedom before you DEFINITELY haul my ass to the Hague...yeah, nice one."

Strategically, with the rest of the World gunning for Bashir, the US should take advantage of its position as a non-member of the ICC to approach Khartoum and apply some of its 'soft-power' rather than trying to eliminate the last channel of diplomacy with an already alienated state with its guns pointed at the South and Darfur, whilst potentially in possession of strong connections and intelligence on a range of terrorist networks. It is therefore very clear to understand why Scott Gration has recently come out to voice his disapproval of the second ICC warrant on Bashir - a further example of the divided relationship of the White House and it's diplomatic actors.



For more info on US and ICC: link and link