Washington — Conflict in Sudan has been a thorny issue for President Barack Obama and his administration since he took office. This week, a leading voice for a more vigorous American approach declared, "U.S. policy is not contributing in a meaningful way to peace and justice in Sudan."
John Prendergast, who worked on Africa conflict prevention at the National Security Council and the State Department during the administration of former president Bill Clinton, warned of potential consequences in a broadside critique issued by the Enough Project which he co-founded. He said that the administration's "largely hands-off approach to critical negotiations" is endangering prospects for peacemaking in Sudan's troubled Darfur region and for avoiding a return to the civil war that raged for more than three decades between the North and the South.
Asked about Sudan during an appearance on the American network ABC, Vice President Joseph Biden said, "we're doing everything in our power" to make sure the referendum in January that will give southerners the chance to chose independence is viewed as free and fair. Biden's three-nation visit to Africa last month was largely dominated by discussions concerning Sudan, according to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson, who accompanied the vice president to Egypt, Kenya and South Africa, where they watched the American team's World Cup match. Carson, the Obama administration's top Africa policymaker, this week is visiting Addis Ababa for talks with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi before going on to Kampala, Uganda, for the African Union Summit next week. Prior to his departure, he was interviewed on a range of policy issues by AllAfrica's Reed Kramer. In part one, he refutes the charges that U.S. government efforts to promote peace in Sudan are lagging. Excerpts:
First, let me ask your impressions from being at the World Cup.
The World Cup was an enormous triumph for South Africa and a tremendous image booster – and not only for South Africa's capacity to organize and run a successful global sporting event but as an image booster for Africa as a whole. The South Africans should feel gratified by the way the Cup turned out. The stadiums were beautiful; the organization was extraordinarily good; there were no major incidents or mishaps; people from around the world were well received; the games ran on time, they were orderly. Probably the greatest damage done during the games was to people's eardrums with the vuvuzelas! One has to applaud this success.
And the vice president devoted a lot of his time to Sudan?
The trip was in reality an opportunity to focus on Sudan. The thing that featured prominently in all three stops was the impending referendum. In Sharm el-Sheikh, with President [Hosni] Mubarak of Egypt and with the foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, and other senior Egyptian officials, he had major conversations about issues related to the Middle East and to the state of affairs around the world. But he spent a great deal of time talking about Sudan.
In Kenya, the longest stop on that visit, he met a whole host of Kenyan officials and gave a very important speech at the Kenyatta Conference Centre. But he also had a lengthy meeting with Sudan's first vice president and the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, [who] brought with him to the meeting six other senior southern leaders. There was an extended discussion about the preparations underway in the south for the referendum which will be held on January 9, 2011.
Then on to South Africa where one of the first things that the vice president did after landing was to speed directly from the airport to the home of the former South African president, Thabo Mbeki, where he engaged for nearly two hours on President Mbeki's role as the high representative responsible for Sudan issues in the African Union (AU). So the trip had a very heavy Sudan focus throughout.
What did the vice president mean when he said in the ABC interview that the United States is committed to a referendum that is viewed as free and fair?
We are committed to the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended 20 years of violence between north and south. The agreement, signed in Naivasha in January 2005, calls for a referendum to be held on the 9th of January 2011. So we have only some five months and three weeks before that referendum is actually held.
The United States, as the vice president said, wants to see the referendum carried out on time in an orderly, creditable, peaceful fashion in which the people of the south of Sudan are able to go to the polls and exercise their rights to say whether they want to remain as part of a unitary state or whether they want to have an independent state.
We are encouraging both the government in Khartoum as well as the southern government in Juba to put in place a process that will be creditable. Our point person on all of this is Special Envoy Scott Gration.
We have augmented our diplomatic representation in South Sudan in order to work more closely with the United Nations, with the government of South Sudan, with Thabo Mbeki, and with others who are working on this issue to ensure that everything is done to make the referendum go well. We have put a senior diplomat into our consulate in Juba, an officer who has tremendous experience, and we have augmented our diplomatic representation in the South by 10 individuals. We will increase our representation in the South to be able to monitor developments, to respond to requests and assist in the engagement process, and to be generally helpful to those who are responsible for organizing the process - to influence a positive outcome.
What is the United States doing to prepare for the aftermath, to help avert a resumption of fighting?
The best way to avoid catastrophe is to see a free, transparent and open referendum, to ensure that both sides are committed to accepting a credible process and a credible outcome. Second, it is to work on the resolution of the post-referendum issues: working out a solution to issues related to citizenship, wealth sharing and oil, demarcation of borders, and how international obligations are going to be handled amongst two states if the people decide that they want to have an independent southern state.
What is important is not only having a successful referendum - and one which is accepted by everyone - but also that there be progress on post-referendum issues and that solutions that are acceptable to both sides are agreed upon. It is differences over these issues of citizenship, wealth sharing, demarcation, international obligations and security issues which could be the source of post-referendum friction. We want to make sure that these issues are handled correctly.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
We have said to the South that we're prepared to help them find international advisers to help them work through these difficult questions. If they need advice from lawyers or economists or geologists who are expert on these issues, we might be able to provide some for them.
By being present in the South, we can also serve a useful purpose by encouraging continued South-South cooperation and reconciliation. There have been points of friction between groups in regions of the South. We think we can be helpful in trying to get government officials to pay attention to anything that might internally cause friction.
Many people question the North's intentions, and particularly their willingness to accept an independent south. What can the United States do to make sure the referendum outcome is implemented?
It is important to trust, but verify. We know there have been times when it has appeared that there has been a reneging on agreements made, but it's absolutely important that as we come down to the wire, everyone move forward on the implementation of their aspect of the agreement. Those who fail to live up to their international obligations under the CPA will be judged harshly by history and probably judged harshly by the international community.
