Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Africa. Show all posts

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Why Progressives Should Oppose Imperialist Interevention in Africa


Is French Operation in Mali a neocolonial intervention?

The conflict in Mali is continuing full bore, with the French military taking the lead both on the ground and in the air and seemingly pushing back Islamic rebels based in the northern part of the country. The rebels, associated primarily with Ansar Dine, had overrun a number of cities in the central part of the country, and for a time were menacing the Malian capital of Bamako.

On Jan. 22, two key cities,Diabaly and Doutenza, were taken by French and Malian troops after the rebels holding them retreated. For the time being, this has ended the threat of the fall of the Bamako government and shifted the fighting back towards the northern part of the country. The French air force has been launching numerous airstrikes in northern Mali, including in the ancient city of Timbuktu, in an attempt to weaken the strongholds of the rebel forces.

The proposed “Africanization” of the conflict has yet to happen as troops from the Economic Community of West African States and other African states have as yet only trickled into Mali. At a recent emergency summit in the Ivory Coast, ECOWAS leaders called on the “international community” to provide financial support for their African military mission in Mali, which is slated to take over most ground operations from the French.

With many towns being taken without a fight, it is unclear if the rebel strategy is to retreat to strong points or launch a guerilla-style conflict. Ominously, human rights organizations have reported that Tuaregs and ethnic Arab civilians have been targeted by Malian security forces in a number of brutal attacks and killings…


Source: Party for Socialism and Liberation

Friday, July 20, 2012

Neoconservative Fallacies in Aggressive Foreign Policy (part 2)


By Zach Foster, resident writer of A Blogging Spot

Al Qaeda certainly needed to be punished for the horrific 9/11 terror attacks and much of the world agreed, but having hundreds of military bases in over a hundred countries didn’t stop the attacks from occurring.  Furthermore, invading Iraq plus getting involved in Libya, Syria, and central Africa isn’t doing much for national security. Both parties in government like spending more money than they take in and both started or got our country involved in wars we didn’t need to fight. Anyone is free to ask any Iraq or Afghan war veteran if he or she really think the Iraqis or Afghans will figure out and embrace democracy and human rights anytime soon, and the response will most likely be “No.”

Many neoconservatives attempt to justify the Iraq and Afghan wars (as well as the African sideshows) by comparing them to the First Barbary War or to World War II.  Their logic is faulty at best as the nature of the centuries-past conflict differs greatly.  The First Barbary War (1801-1805) was initiated after semi-independent sultans of the Ottoman Empire’s buffer states had been authorizing pirates to kidnap…


Source: A Blogging Spot

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

U.S. Imposes Visa Restrictions on Malian Mutineers


Washington, DC
April 3, 2012

The Department of State today imposed restrictions on travel to the United States on persons and the immediate family of persons who block Mali’s return to civilian rule and a democratically elected government, including those who actively promote Captain Amadou Sanogo and the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy, who seized power from democratically elected President Amadou Toumani Touré on March 21, 2012. The decision to impose visa restrictions follows and supports the decision of the Economic Community of West African States and the African Union to impose similar sanctions.

The United States reiterates its call on Captain Sanogo and his supporters to restore full civilian rule to Mali without delay.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 1)

By Zach Foster
 
This article was originally published by Young Americans for Liberty.
 
Many Americans with some political consciousness tend to group themselves in one or two political categories: the left and the right, the former are usually associated with the Democrat Party and the latter with the Republican Party.  Whenever people assign themselves to one of these two positions, they usually subscribe to the majority of that position’s pre-set policies and beliefs.
 
Both the left and the right have their own views on the sanctity of life, yet their contradictory views -- the left being against war and the death penalty but all for the choice of abortion and the right being against abortion but for the death penalty and war -- become a paradox.  Wherever they stand on the issue of life, both the left and the right are in full favor of death to some extent, and any stance they take on preserving life -- whether in the fetal stage or in the electric chair -- is based on fallacious logic and dishonest euphemisms.  Both sides are willing to kill in order to bring about their ideal conditions in society.
 
Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing
 
Leftists love to attack war but most of them are hypocrites for doing so, since they also often favor war but simply for different reasons than the right.  Socialists favor labor violence and outright civil wars which they refer to as “wars of liberation.”  If they subscribe to Lenin’s teachings, violence and outright terror in the name of proletarian revolution are justified (see The Black Book of Communism, Chapter 4: The Red Terror).   More moderate leftists, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, campaign on peace but instead lead the country into wars for various political and economic purposes.  With Wilson it was the First World War  and with Obama it was continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as intervention in the Libyan Civil War as well as those in Somalia, South Sudan, and Central Africa.   Both social democrats enjoyed wide support from their allegedly pacific Democrat Party.
 
Leftists also tend to write off abortion as a matter of civil rights for women.  Let us beg to differ!  They scream and cry over American… (Read the rest of the article)

Monday, August 22, 2011

Statement of President Barack Obama on Libya

Tonight, the momentum against the Qadhafi regime has reached a tipping point. Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant. The Qadhafi regime is showing signs of collapsing. The people of Libya are showing that the universal pursuit of dignity and freedom is far stronger than the iron fist of a dictator.

The surest way for the bloodshed to end is simple: Moammar Qadhafi and his regime need to recognize that their rule has come to an end. Qadhafi needs to acknowledge the reality that he no longer controls Libya. He needs to relinquish power once and for all. Meanwhile, the United States has recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority in Libya. At this pivotal and historic time, the TNC  should continue to demonstrate the leadership that is necessary to steer the country through a transition by respecting the rights of the people of Libya, avoiding civilian casualties, protecting the institutions of the Libyan state, and pursuing a transition to democracy that is just and inclusive for all of the people of Libya. A season of conflict must lead to one of peace.

The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. Going forward, the United States will continue to stay in close coordination with the TNC. We will continue to insist that the basic rights of the Libyan people are respected. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners in the international community to protect the people of Libya, and to support a peaceful transition to democracy.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Secretary Clinton To Deliver Remarks on the Humanitarian Crisis in the Horn of Africa on August 11

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver remarks on the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) at approximately 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 11, 2011.

Secretary Clinton will discuss the ongoing international humanitarian response, as well as how the crisis in the Horn of Africa shows the urgency of investing in sustained food security through efforts such as Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security initiative.

Secretary Clinton’s remarks will be open to credentialed members of the media and live-streamed here. Media should RSVP to m.pietrowski@cgiar.org. Press access times will be forthcoming in the public schedule.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
2033 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20006

IFPRI is a research institute that seeks sustainable solutions to ending global poverty and hunger, and is a major research partner for Feed the Future.

PRESS CONTACTS:

U.S. Department of State
Office of Press Relations
(202) 647-2492

International Food Policy Research Institute
Media Relations
Michele Pietrowski

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

U.S. Policy in Yemen

Janet Sanderson
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

Thank you, Mr. Chairman:

Chairman Casey, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the committee, let me first join with my colleagues to thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. We appreciate the committee's abiding interest in and attention to our nation's priorities and goals in the region.

We are pleased to present the committee with an overview of the administration's policy and our relationship with Yemen. As you rightly know, Mr. Chairman, civil unrest in the Middle East and North Africa in the past six months has focused attention on governance across the region.

Yemen is, indeed, confronting a myriad of political, economic, social, security and governance challenges, and the current political crisis has exacerbated systemic issues such as unemployment, a rapidly growing population, weak state institutions, declining government revenues, growing natural resource scarcity, and of course, violent extremism.

Consistent with U.S. national interests, we have adopted a two-pronged strategy for Yemen: helping the government confront the immediate security threat represented by Al Qaida, and mitigating serious political, economic and governance issues that the country faces over the long terms, the drivers of instability.

The United States continues its regular engagement with the government, including with President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who's currently, as you know, recovering in Saudi Arabia from his injuries following a June 3rd attack on his compound; the acting president, Vice President Abd-Rabbu Mansur al-Hadi; the opposition; civil society activists and others interested in Yemen's future.

We strongly support the Gulf Cooperation Council's initiative which we believe would lead to a peaceful and orderly political transition. The GCC initiative signed by both the ruling General People's Congress Party and the opposition coalition Joint Meeting Parties. Only President Saleh is blocking the agreement moving forward and we continue to call on him to sign the initiative.

The situation on the ground remains extremely fluid, but the solution will come and must come from the Yemeni people, with the assistance and support of their international partners, namely the GCC and Saudi Arabia. Conditions in Yemen continue to deteriorate under the pressure of growing protests and increasing divisions throughout the country. Widespread inflation, including rising commodity prices, decreasing liquidity in the threat of a food shortage this summer foreshadow an economic crisis in the coming months.

While most protests in Yemen have been peaceful over the last couple of months, there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators and between protesters and government security forces and irregular elements using force to break up demonstrations. The United States has strongly urged the Yemeni government to investigate and prosecute all acts of violence against protesters.

Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, the goal of the U.S. and international efforts is a stable, secure, prosperous and effectively governed Yemen. This is an ambitious, long-term goal that demands the deep and ongoing coordination with the Yemeni government and the international partners. We will be able to more effectively engage in Yemen once the Yemeni government initiates the political transition and identifies its way forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us to testify before your committee today, and thank you so much on behalf of Ambassador Feierstein and his colleagues at MAC (ph) Sana'a for your very kind words. They certainly deserve it. My colleagues and I are very happy now to take your questions. Thank you.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Thursday, July 7, 2011

The New Republic of South Sudan

Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs

MS. NULAND: Good morning, everybody. As you know, this Saturday, July 9th, the Republic of South Sudan will celebrate a ceremony to mark its independence, culminating a six-year peace process. The U.S. presidential delegation to the ceremony will be led by our Ambassador to the United Nations, the Honorable Susan Rice. And the delegation will travel to Juba to attend this historic event today. We are very pleased this morning to have Ambassador Rice as well as several members of the delegation to talk to you about this trip. We also have Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson and Deputy Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development Don Steinberg.

Welcome, Ambassador Rice.

AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. I’m very honored to lead the delegation that will travel on behalf of the United States to Juba to welcome the new Republic of South Sudan into the community of sovereign nations.

As you know, the delegation will also include Ambassador Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; Brooke Anderson, the Deputy National Security Advisor and Chief of Staff and Counselor at the National Security Staff; General Carter Ham, the commander of U.S. Africa Command; Deputy Administrator of USAID Don Steinberg; Congressman Donald Payne of New Jersey, who is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and formerly chairman of that subcommittee; Ambassador Princeton Lyman, who of course is our Special Envoy of the President to Sudan; Barrie Walkley, who is the U.S. Consul General in Juba; and Mr. Ken Hackett, who is president of Catholic Relief Services, an NGO that’s been very active for many years throughout Sudan.

I’m particularly honored, in addition, that we’ll be joined on the delegation by General Colin Powell, who as you all know, along with one of my predecessors, John Danforth, worked so hard to lay the groundwork for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. And obviously, General Powell did that while he served as Secretary of State.

So as you can see, this is a very strong and bipartisan American delegation. It reflects the President’s deep commitment to developments in Sudan and to supporting the new Republic of South Sudan. And we will be active, all of us, all members of this delegation, in our time in Juba, pushing forward on the issues that are so important and remain to be resolved.

Let me just say a few more words about what we’ll be doing, why it’s important, and what message we’ll be bringing on behalf of President Obama. Our trip will, of course, focus on the celebration of the independence of the Republic of South Sudan. Our day will include, in addition to the ceremonies, a meeting with President Salva Kiir and a ribbon-cutting to officially transform the U.S. Consulate in Juba into the U.S. Embassy to the new Republic of South Sudan.

As you know, this independence celebration is a deeply significant event for the people of South Sudan, who, after a half century of war and more than 2 million people lost, finally will have the ability to determine their own future. By any standard, this is a historic moment, and the fact that it’s occurring as a result of a democratic exercise through a referendum that occurred peacefully and on time is itself all the more remarkable.

The United States has worked tirelessly to help make the promise of this moment a reality. First, it would not have been possible without the steadfast leadership and personal engagement of President Obama, who raised his voice consistently and eloquently as he did before what was a historic gathering at the United Nations last September, where he spoke in support, quote, “of a future where, after the darkness of war, there can be a new day of peace and progress.”

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Geithner Joint Letter to G8 Ministers

Dear G8 Colleagues,

As President Obama said on May 19, the courage of the people of the Middle East and North Africa has created a historic opportunity. This is a time for the region and the world to work together to support successful transitions toward democratic societies and more inclusive economies.

As our nations gather at Deauville, we should consider several steps to support these goals. We share a compelling interest in seeing the transitions in Egypt and Tunisia succeed and become models for the region. Otherwise, we risk losing this moment of opportunity.

Experience from other democratic transitions has taught us that we should focus on trade, not just aid, and on investment, not just assistance. Moreover, our efforts should be aligned with the needs and aspirations of the people of the region. In Egypt and Tunisia, citizens have outlined several key priorities: improving financial stability, strengthening the private sector, curbing corruption, creating jobs, and further integrating their markets with the region and the global economy.

With these priorities in mind, we should first offer our strong support for the Joint Action Plan of the Multilateral Development Banks. The World Bank and the African Development Bank will bring their resources to bear by supporting home-grown policies and reform agendas. We call on governments around the world—including in the Middle East and the Gulf—to join us in forming a broad and long-term partnership to support Egypt and Tunisia. It will be important to ensure that public dollars help leverage private dollars and grow private enterprise, and that the reforms are driven by the people and leaders of the region themselves.

Second, we should help Egypt convert the debts of the past into investments for the future. The United States is committed to a debt swap for Egypt and we are asking our partners to join us in this initiative. A debt swap will enable Egypt to channel its debt payments toward underwriting swift, sustainable job creation. A shared response in the form of a multi-creditor debt swap for job creation would provide Egypt with financial relief while also ensuring that critical investments are made to improve the lives of Egyptian people. We also should stand ready in the Paris Club to reinforce the forthcoming IMF package for Egypt. At the same time, we should collectively commit to helping newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, the G-8 should lead efforts to reorient the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) so that it can play the same role today in supporting democratic transitions in the Middle East and North Africa that it has played over the past two decades in Central and Eastern Europe. Our countries should use the Deauville Summit to support a mechanism that enables the EBRD to engage in the near-term to support private sector development in the region, as well as reforms that create conditions for successful entrepreneurship.

These immediate steps will provide important support to the democratic transitions already underway. But to be most effective, they must be part of a larger vision that connects the region to the global economy.

Non-oil exports within the Middle East and North Africa currently account for less than 10 percent of the region’s total trade— lower than that of any other region in the world. This lack of regional integration has contributed to chronic unemployment and hindered diversification.
To begin reversing this trend, President Obama announced a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. We ask members of the G-8 and the EU to join the United States and other willing partners across the region to facilitate more trade within the region, as well as between the region and global markets. This plan will increase market access and create new economic opportunities in new sectors, driven by new technologies. Just as membership in the European Union served as a powerful incentive for economic transformation in Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War, so should the prospect of participating in an integrated and dynamic regional economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

As President Obama said, the greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. Ultimately, they are the ones who will determine the future of their region. The nations of the G-8 share an interest and a responsibility in supporting these people and their countries as they move toward genuine democracy and more vibrant and open economies. The proposals we have outlined are important steps toward that future and we should waste no time in seizing this moment of opportunity. We look forward to working with you in translating these proposals into results.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Joint Statement on the Start of Polling for the Southern Sudan Referendum

Following is the text of a joint statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Støre, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague on the start of polling for the Southern Sudan referendum.

Begin Text:

We welcome the start of polling today for the Southern Sudan Referendum. This represents a historic step towards completion of Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We recognise the significant progress which has been made in recent weeks towards preparing for the referendum, including the successful completion of voter registration and other technical arrangements. We welcome the preliminary reports of the UN Secretary General’s Panel on the Referenda in Sudan, Carter Center, European Union, and other international and domestic observation missions, which stated that arrangements are now in place that provide a firm foundation for a credible referendum to take place.

We call for all efforts to ensure peaceful and credible completion of the referendum process in a manner which reflects the will of the people of South Sudan. The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission and Southern Sudan Referendum Bureau have made enormous efforts under significant pressure and deserve to be commended for their work. We welcome the leadership shown by both Sudanese parties. President Bashir has made clear that his Government will respect the outcome of the Referendum. We welcome this commitment.

We are encouraged by the strong public commitments of both Presidents Bashir and Kiir to continue negotiations on post-referendum issues and to foster cooperation between the North and South regardless of the referendum result. We welcome these commitments as well as their pledge that the safety and security of all peoples in Sudan will be protected throughout this process. It is vital that these commitments are upheld.

The situation in Abyei remains of deep concern. We commend the people of Abyei for their patience in recent months. The outstanding issues must be resolved in a calm and measured manner and we emphasise again to both parties their responsibilities to urgently resolve the impasse. Clear communication is also vital to reassure the communities on the ground that their concerns will be addressed and underscore that the parties will reconvene negotiations at the earliest possible date. It is also of great importance that popular consultations in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states are conducted expeditiously and inclusively.

The work of the many domestic and international observation and monitoring groups is crucial. We welcome their continuing engagement. We also welcome the strong leadership by the United Nations Mission in Sudan. We will work closely with all international partners to maintain strong international support for the referendum process, and successful completion of the CPA.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Cote d'Ivoire: Financial Sanctions

Office of the Spokesman

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today leveled financial sanctions against former Cote d’Ivoire President Laurent Gbagbo and his wife, Simone Gbagbo. Today’s action also targeted three of Laurent Gbagbo’s senior advisors and members of his inner circle, Desire Tagro, Pascal Affi N’Guessan, and Alcide Ilahiri Djedje for acting for or on his behalf. As a result of today's actions, U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting financial or commercial transactions with the designated individuals, and any assets of the designees within U.S. jurisdiction are frozen.

The citizens of Cote d’Ivoire expressed their will in elections on November 28, electing Alassane Ouattara the new president with 54 percent of the vote. The results were widely declared by accredited, credible international observers to be free and fair. Gbagbo’s efforts to remain in power threaten years of reconciliation and peace-building efforts on behalf of the Ivoirian people.

Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, to members of the UN Press on Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire

Ambassador Rice: Our president of the Council will soon issue a press statement that basically summarizes the Council’s view on the situation in Sudan. It was a US-drafted statement and we agree with everything in it. The purpose really is to underscore that there’s been some important progress made in preparations for the referendum in the South on Sunday, beginning on Sunday. We’re encouraged that the parties seem to be making timely and clear-cut statements reaffirming their commitment to the process, to holding it on time, and to respecting the results. That said, obviously there are a number of very critical outstanding issues that need to be resolved about which we remain very much concerned and focused on, including Abyei and citizenship, including resource-sharing, debt, and all of that – that will need continued urgent attention in the wake of the conclusion of the referendum period after the fifteenth.

We also spent a lot of time in the Council – and you’ll see this reflected in the statement – discussing the very concerning deteriorating situation in Darfur – and expressed real concern about violence that has led to a high number of displacements in the month of December – 40,000 rapes, murders, burning of villages, aerial bombardments, stuff that sadly we’ve become accustomed to in the context of Darfur. And the Council, for its part, and the United States, clearly for our part, are both very much focused on the situation in Darfur and the urgency of addressing issues like access for UNAMID, ending any external support that may be continuing to the parties on both sides, and ensuring that negotiations proceed in a serious fashion. In that regard, we and others expressed the importance of the government continuing to stay at the table and negotiate seriously in Doha, and we welcome the progress that the LJM made in accepting the recommendations, and hope that that can possibly provide a basis for progress on a larger set of Darfur issues.

Reporter: I know that you’re very concerned about Darfur, but can you just confirm the reports from the New York Times and elsewhere that a peaceful approach to Darfur was taken up as a condition for a package of incentives? You know, when the package of incentives was put forward, there were conditions for it to be activated. And the main one was for Bashir to cooperate with a peaceful referendum, there was also supposed to be his cooperation for a peaceful settlement for Darfur. The Times has reported that that is no longer a condition.

Ambassador Rice: I haven’t seen that, but no. The United States has always said that full normalization – the President said it himself here on the twenty-fourth— the full normalization of our relationship with Sudan depends on its resolution of the situation in Darfur. There are interim steps, important steps, that we hope will be in a position to take as progress is being made on implementing the CPA. I don’t know what this report is you’re talking to – it is not right.

Reporter: Related to this, this agreement by Salva Kiir to eject or stop the rebel groups from Darfur from being in South Sudan. Is it a positive thing? Does it help resolve things in Darfur, the idea that they wouldn’t have to go back? It was announced by Salva Kiir.

Ambassador Rice: Our view has long been that it’s vitally important that both parties to the CPA refrain from, in any way, direct or indirectly supporting rebel or proxy activity against the other. And so we urged that, to the extent that that has been the case, that it cease.

Reporter: Is there a problem with Darfur rebels in South Sudan? What’s the extent of it?

Ambassador Rice: I’m not sure I can give you a full assessment of the extent of it. I mean we’ve heard the UN report that there have been instances in which, perhaps to escape military activity in the North, rebels have moved into the South. We’ve seen evidence of bombing in hot pursuit by the government. So it’s clearly something of an issue. I can’t give you scientific assessment of its magnitude.

Reporter: On Cote D’Ivoire, Mr. LeRoy is increasingly worried about ethnic violence, the situation in the Gulf Hotel is at a standstill, ambassadors yesterday said they were strongly supportive of giving ECOWAS dialogue and negotiations a chance. Is the US sort of running out of patience and feeling, one, that the proposal by Mr. LeRoy to increase the strength of UNOCI, which he says he’s going to make next week – do you support that? And also, is it time, perhaps that there are some sanctions for Gbagbo and his cabinet? How do you feel about increasing the pressure on him versus the ECOWAS?

Ambassador Rice: I think they’re not mutually exclusive. Secondly, we haven’t seen a specific proposal on UNOCI so we haven’t taken a position on it. Obviously we’ve indicated a concern that UNOCI have what it needs to be effective and will consider swiftly and seriously any specific request we are getting. With respect to sanctions, we, the United States, and the European Union and others have taken steps, including yesterday to sanction Gbagbo and those close to him in terms of the authority to travel and move resources and assets. We think that kind of pressure is warranted given the continued refusal to accept and act on the will of the Ivorian people. And certainly in case of the UN we have a sanctions regime, they exist on Cote D’Ivoire and to the extent that this remains stalled, I think we are obliged to look at whether it needs to be augmented and invigorated.

Reporter: Look imminently?

Ambassador Rice: I’m not putting a timeline on it, but I think that it’s time to begin to discuss that seriously.

Expectations & Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum

Scott Gration
Special Envoy to Sudan Philip J. Crowley

MR. CROWLEY: Hello and welcome to the Department of State in Washington, D.C. I’m P.J. Crowley. I’m the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. And this is another conversation with America where we talk to a key diplomat or a national security leader about critical issues facing the United States and the rest of the world. Today, we’re here to talk about the future of Sudan with General Scott Gration, our Special Envoy for Sudan.

Scott, you’ve made how many trips to Sudan since the Obama Administration started?

MR. GRATION: I’m coming up on my 24th.

MR. CROWLEY: Twenty-four trips. And what Sudan faces in the coming days and the coming months is a critical referendum on the future of South Sudan, and we’ll talk about something called the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the way forward on this crucial issue.

Scott, thank you very much for joining us.

MR. GRATION: It’s great to be here, P.J.

MR. CROWLEY: So let’s talk about Sudan. There is this thing called the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. What is Sudan facing starting with this referendum in the coming days?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is a really big deal because this vote gives the Southern Sudanese the opportunity to decide whether they want to be united as they have been since 1956, or to choose independence. And that’s what we’re trying to do, put together a process that was mandated back in 2005 under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and now is the fruition. In fact, it is -- the referendum will take place on the sixth anniversary of the signing, that signing that ended 22 years of civil war in the South.

And so we’re looking forward to an opportunity where the Southern Sudanese can go out not only in Southern Sudan, but the Southern Sudanese that are in the North and in eight countries where the diaspora are located. They’ll have an opportunity to express their will, and then that will decide whether they become a new country or they remain united.

MR. CROWLEY: And maybe the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, it perhaps represents continuity in United States foreign policy and the international commitment to Sudan. What’s a little bit of the history of the CPA going back to trying to end the civil war during the Bush Administration?

MR. GRATION: Well, this has really been a cornerstone of our policy in Sudan, supporting the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We were there at the Machakos Accord, we were there in Naivasha where this document was finalized and signed. And the fact is our Secretary of State Colin Powell was out there. We had a special representative, Senator John Danforth who helped work through a lot of the issues. And the fact is we have been a partner with the IGAD community, with other people, other nations, right from the very start. So this is a very important peace document, and we’re working very hard to make sure it gets implemented fully.

Now, the referendum is just one piece of this. There’s border demarcation. There’s citizenship element. There’s what happens to the oil. Now, these aren’t specific to the document, but they are part of the document. The document sets up a framework where the North and the South can negotiate and reach agreements on these very special issues.

In addition to that, there’s popular consultations in Kordofan and in the Blue Nile where they have an opportunity to mold their future. And there’s also the issue of Abyei, a very sensitive issue that hasn’t been decided yet, but that’s part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement too, to decide, if the South becomes independent, what happens to this piece of property in southern Kordofan that belongs, according to the Hague Treaty, to the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms.

MR. CROWLEY: Now, you’ve made 23 trips to Sudan thus far. Six months ago, nine months ago, did you have confidence that this referendum might come off the way it is poised to?

MR. GRATION: Well, P.J., you always have to be optimistic. Otherwise, you wouldn’t get up in the morning. And so I’ve been optimistic that this could happen, and I’m very pleased that, in fact, we are poised, and there really is no technical reason why we can’t have this referendum. Sure, there’s things that might come up at the end, but right now we’re five days away, and it looks to me like this will come off and start on the 9th. And it will continue for seven days, and then there will be a process where the votes are counted, we make sure that we have the 60 percent turnout, and then we’ll get an official result sometime after that, something maybe in the last week in January, the first week of February, at which time we’ll know what the Southern Sudanese have decided.

What we’re looking for is not the outcome, though, P.J. We’re looking to make sure that there’s a process where the people have an opportunity to express their free will, a process that happens on time, that happens peacefully, and that is transparent. Because in the end, the international community, along with the people of the North and the South, have to say “Yes, this really is the will of the people and we’ll accept the results.”

MR. CROWLEY: Now, South Sudan represents something like a third of the current land mass –

MR. GRATION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: -- of Sudan. Is it ready to be its own country?

MR. GRATION: Well, sure there’s things that need to be done to make it more ready, but yes, I believe that if the South chooses to be independent – they’ve been autonomous for almost six years. In other words, they’ve had a system of self-governance. They have a military called the SPLA. And several countries, including the United States, have been helping them transform from a guerrilla organization to an organization that can defend their borders and defend their people. They have a civil police organization, and we’ve been very much involved in helping train that organization to respect human rights and to provide a framework for civil society protections and security.

So yes, there’s things that need to be done in terms of developing the agriculture. There’s things that need to be done in terms of education. Southern Sudan has been plagued with a literacy rate that’s very low. It’s below 20 percent. And so we’re working very hard to make sure that we can help them in the four areas of literacy. One is just the standard primary school, and then the second thing is teacher training. There’s only about 20 percent of their teachers that are qualified and ready to teach, so they need some really – a lot of help in terms of teacher education. And then we have a lot of Sudanese that are highly educated but they’ve been living in the North, and some of these are coming south, and so there’s going to have to be that translation mode where people from the South who have been living in the North who speak Arabic, who studied in Arabic, need to come south and learn numeracy and literacy in terms of being able to communicate in the languages that are more spoken in the South.

And then the final piece is a lot of people, because they’ve been at war for 40 years, missed an opportunity to get educated. So we have a whole segment of the adult population that needs to have adult education. This is going to be a lot of work. We’re looking at public-private ways of funding this and getting involved. We’re looking at seeing if some institutions, like the Bush Institute* and others, will want to get involved. Teach for America has an international arm. We’re looking at those. And of course, the standards of USAID and UNICEF will have to play a very large role in the education program.

MR. CROWLEY: Now, under the CPA, with the referendum starting this coming weekend, the South Sudanese, if they choose, will be independent as of next July. Now, that sets up a kind of very intensive six-month period. What needs to be done in the post-referendum phase?

MR. GRATION: Well, you’re exactly right. The interim period of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement comes to an end on the 9th of July, and anytime after that the South can choose to become independent if that’s what the people vote for. We don’t know if it’s going to happen on the 10th or sometime later, but yes, it could happen as early as July 10th.

Now, in my view, the longest border that the South will share with any country is that 1,936-kilometer border that is between the North and the South. And the fact is if you take a look at the oil, the infrastructure for the oil transportations in the North, much of the transportation and communication infrastructure is in the North. And there’s things like airspace control, those kinds of things that it’s going to probably take a little while to do that transition period or transformation period or independence.

And so in my view, probably the biggest thing that has to happen is building the relationship between the North and the South as two independent countries, if that’s what they choose. Because they’re going to have to communicate. They’re going to have to cooperate. There’s going to have to be agreements on security, agreement on political things, and certainly some agreements on economic issues. And then the citizenship issue has to be resolved, and that’s why the border demarcation piece is so important.

So again, we’ll continue to work with both the North and the South to help them through this phase, to help them get the relationships that they need to make sure that they can operate at peace with each other and promote peace in all of Africa and especially that community where they live.

MR. CROWLEY: And how much of that border is currently resolved? There’s still some questions.

MR. GRATION: There are some questions. There’s about 320 kilometers that are still under dispute. There are five areas. Some probably will be easy to figure out because we have the data going back to when the British and the Turks were working in that area. And what we’ve decided is that the border that was in existence on the 1st of January 1956 will be the border. But there’s some areas that weren’t gazetted, some areas that we’re demarcated, and some areas that moved after that point, and some before. So we’re going back and researching the documents and researching the agreements that were made, and we’re going to have to figure this out. Some may have to go to arbitration, but I believe we can come up with a solution for all those 320 kilometers that are under dispute.

MR. CROWLEY: And you mentioned earlier Abyei. Now, the original CPA called for two referenda.

MR. GRATION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: One will take place – the parties have not been able to resolve the question of how to determine the future of Abyei. Talk a little bit about Abyei. What does it represent and what are some of the complex elements of that issue?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is probably the toughest issue that we’ve had to face as we’ve come up to full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. And the reason is, is that, first of all, it was an area that was under arbitration, and the Permanent Court of Appeals in The Hague gave a definition to Abyei, but there’s still a competition as to who really has rights to the land. The Ngok Dinka believe that they have the rights to the land, the nine chiefdoms of the Ngok Dinka. At the same time, the Misseriya believe that they have historical rights, that they’ve been passing through that area for hundreds of years to get to water, to get to grazing land, and that they have rights.

And so this is a problem and it’s become very emotional, it’s become politicized, and there’s a lot of passions associated with this. We’ve been working hard with both parties to create an atmosphere and an environment where they could come up with a solution. So far, they have not been able to come up with a solution, but I think that they’re going to have to, at some point, demonstrate the political will, the political courage, and the political leadership to make some concessions and to make an agreement that will serve all the people of that region. Because the Misseriya still need to come down to water and grazing lands, and it is true that the Ngok Dinka have had this ruling and they have rights to that land.

So we’ll have to see how they resolve it, but this is one of those things where all we can do is help, but the parties themselves have to come up with a solution that meet the needs of their constituencies and meet the needs of their two parties.

MR. CROWLEY: And then there’s Darfur. Now, most people know more about Darfur and the challenge there. Update us a little bit. What is happening today in Darfur?

MR. GRATION: P.J., we’ve spent a lot of time on Darfur. On my last trip, I spent three days in Doha and three days in Darfur, and it is a big issue for us. We have not abandoned Darfur while we’ve been thinking about the referendum. Sure, the referendum is the nearest thing and is getting a lot of publicity, but at the same time, I am probably spending more time right now on Darfur than I am even on the referendum.

And the things that we’re working on are a couple. One is we’ve just got to stop the civil war, the fighting that’s going on between the rebel groups and the government. This is causing a dislocation of the people, it is causing more suffering, and it’s causing more IDPs, or internally displaced people. That has got to stop.

At the same time, the people have to have places to go back to, and so we’re working to make sure that there’s overall security, and that there’s an infrastructure and a stabilization, where the infrastructure – so there’s water points, there’s education, there’s medical, so that when the people decide to return, they have something to go back to. And that the basic problems that started this conflict – the resource issues and that kind of thing between those that grow and those that graze – that those issues are solved, that there’s opportunities to create wealth, that there’s opportunities for jobs. And so we’re looking at systemic issues and we’re looking at the combat issues and we’re trying to create a situation where the people of Darfur can have a future that was better than the past.

At the same time, we know that we’re not going to get a peace unless we take care of the justice and the accountability issues and that there’s reconciliation. And so we’re looking at compensation, we’re looking at wealth sharing, we’re looking at power sharing, and we’re looking to make sure that people have avenues to get those wrongs righted and be able to move forward.

MR. CROWLEY: In the CPA, it’s about North and South, but how does the future of South Sudan, which does not directly affect Darfur but – how does that – does one affect the other ultimately? Is there a dynamic here that will have an impact on Darfur even though the CPA itself does not involve Darfur?

MR. GRATION: Darfur is a very complex issue. We had to start out by working on the conflict between Chad-supported rebels and Sudanese-supported rebels, and so that problem we were able to resolve. We are now working on a ceasefire between the JEM, which is the Justice and Equality Movement, and some of the other movements. But we’re going to have to resolve a lot of issues, and so there’s a lot of external players and internal players.

In the South, if the South becomes unstable, it could also involve spillover. And at the same time, if we can’t solve the problem of Darfur, then the South will have to take refugees. And so all of these issues – the North needs to be strong, because the South needs a strong partner to the North. The South needs to be strong. And Darfur needs to be resolved.

The bottom line is you’re exactly right; unless we get all of the three elements working and improving with a brighter future and a stronger infrastructure – and that’s why the international community and the United States has to remain involved. We have to make sure that if the South chooses to be independent, that they have an opportunity to grow and become strong and become a vibrant and prosperous nation. The same with the North – there will be 30-some million people in the North; they need the same kind of future. And of course, Darfur, with its roughly 8 million people, they need a future where they can start stabilizing, where kids can grow up without living in an environment where they either live in an IDP camp or they live with conflict and danger.

These are the things we’ve been working on. These are the things that the Obama Administration is committed to. Our objectives are to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and we’re making great progress. The other thing, though, is to end the conflict in Darfur definitively, to end the gross human rights abuses and the genocide, and that’s what we’re working on. And then of course, we want to make sure that the whole region is not a place where terrorists can come back to, it is not a place that will foster terrorism and things that will actually destroy the country but also spill over into the neighborhood. These are the things we’re working on, and I believe we’re making good progress in each of those three areas.

MR. CROWLEY: Why have you made this investment or why has the President made this investment in Sudan? I mean, there’s lots of things, there’s lots of challenges around the world, but why is Sudan important to the United States?

MR. GRATION: It’s interesting that one of the senior leaders in Africa, somebody who I’ve spent a lot of time listening to, said to me, “Sudan is so important, because if we’re not successful in bringing peace and stability to Sudan, from Cairo to Cape Town, and from Dakar to Djibouti, we will have unrest.” And the more I think about it and the more I’ve seen, Sudan is one of the biggest countries in the – in Africa, certainly, and one of the major countries of the world, and it’s huge. It’s as big as from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River. People don’t realize how big this thing is.

And so if there’s unrest and if there’s problems, it’s going to spill over. But the thing that I go back to – it comes down to the individuals, the people. I take a look at the children who, in many cases, have not seen peace, have not seen prosperity. I take a look at the South. They’ve been fighting for 40 years – 22 years in the last fight before the CPA was signed. I take a look at people that have missed opportunities for education, missed opportunities to reap the benefits that we take for granted in the rest of the world. Those people need a chance. And that’s why we’re doing it – to make sure that the people who have suffered so much in Darfur, the people that have lost almost 2 million people in the South, that their future doesn’t include that kind of pain, that kind of suffering, and that kind of death. That’s why we’re involved.

But more than that, there’s a security issue, there’s an economic issue, and there’s a political issue. And I believe if we can solve Sudan, then the whole continent of Africa has a brighter future.

MR. CROWLEY: Do you think that there are leaders, North and South, who can see that long-term potential and rise above the conflict that they have been fighting for four years?

MR. GRATION: Yeah, one of the things President Obama has asked us to do is to take a look at how do we internationalize and multilateralize this problem. And so we’ve worked on building a network of contacts, a network of partners who are involved. And it not only includes the two parties – and they’re the ones that have to make the decisions and the agreements – but it includes the nine neighbors, and it includes all the rest of Africa, and it includes the international community. And we’ve been working very hard through the P-5, and Ambassador Rice has been very helpful there.

Secretary Clinton has been absolutely superb. She has made telephone calls. She has written letters. She’s become very, very involved in building a coalition in and around Sudan that will be able to help make sure that there’s that support mechanism, the things that you’re talking about. And certainly, her contacts with Egypt and certainly Ethiopia – Prime Minister Meles has been a very large supporter – and countries to the south, the IGAD countries are heavily invested. And President Deby, of course, made great efforts to solve the problem between Khartoum and N'djamena and made a historic trip on – almost a year ago, on the 8th of February, where he went across and restored relationships and started the rapprochement that has been able to help us stop the fighting in Darfur.

My point is this: People are invested. We’ve built a very strong team both within the government, where we have almost a hundred people working on Sudan every day, down to the international community, where many people are involved and many countries are involved in a very serious and committed way.

MR. CROWLEY: And then what – how does Darfur fit into this? What do you want to see either from North – from the Government of Khartoum or from some of the rebel elements that are still active in Darfur?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is a very critical time. And because of that, we brought on another very experienced ambassador, Dane Smith. And right now – we had in Doha, with the Government of Qatar and with the AU-UN mediation team led by Djibrill Bassole, that’s coming to an end. And somewhere in the next 30 to 60 days, that will be transitioning to Darfur under the Darfur-Darfur Conference, so that civil society can be more involved. And we’ve actually put together a framework agreement – when I say “we,” the international community led by the UN-AU mediator – and that needs to be implemented. So that’s why the process is moving to Darfur.

So there’s going to have to be more of a bigger footprint in Darfur and there’s going to have to be more international community efforts in Darfur. And when we do get this peace or stabilization or more security, then the international community is going to have to come in with stabilization programs and development programs because Darfur’s in the same place. We have almost three million people living in IDP camps that have access to food and shelter and water that’s being provided. That can’t continue. You can’t have sustained emergency operations. We need to have sustainable development. And that means we’re going to have to work hard on a plan and we’re going to have to work hard on implantation programs that allow the Darfuris to have that same thing that we talked about in the South: agriculture, education, infrastructure, wealth creation opportunities. That’s going to be a big job, but it has to happen.

MR. CROWLEY: My last question: If we sit here a year from now, what will you hope to see in Sudan?

MR. GRATION: I hope to be able to take my family there on a vacation. I hope to be able to travel with peace and security. I hope to see the sights that Sudan has and meet the wonderful people that are there in Sudan, and I would hope that they would be able to come to America without restriction. And I would hope to see an economy that’s vibrant, and I would love to see a country that’s developing along with the rest of the world. I think it can happen. And I think what this Administration has been able to do in the last two years sets the foundation for a future that is bright and sets the foundation so that the kids that are now five years old, the age of my grandchildren, that they’ll have the same future as my grandchildren. And they don’t have that today, but I think they deserve it, I think they need it, and that’s what I’ve been working for.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s hope that that vision comes to pass, and we’ll invite you back and see how close we came. Scott, thank you very much. Thank you for your hard work. And we’ll look to see what happens here in Sudan in the next six months.

MR. GRATION: Thank you, P.J. It’s been an honor.

MR. CROWLEY: And thank you very much for joining us for a conversation with America, and we’ll see you again soon.