webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2010
All rights reserved
From: Biniam Tekle (biniamt@dehai.org)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2010 - 07:59:07 EDT
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/27/crisis-point-dead-ahead/print/
BOLTON: Crisis point dead ahead
Obama appeasement may rekindle genocide
By John R. Bolton
-
The Washington Times
5:55 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2010
''Ticking time bomb" is the entirely accurate way Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton recently described Sudan. There is every
indication the country is nearing a breakup, almost certainly into its
northern and southern halves, and perhaps additional fragments. The
central question is not if dissolution will occur, but whether it will
proceed relatively peacefully or whether renewed military conflict
inside Sudan is inevitable, possibly spilling into neighboring
countries.
Unfortunately, President Obama is increasing the risk this time bomb
will explode. His efforts to appease President Omar Hassan al-Bashir's
government in Khartoum have increased Mr. Bashir's perception of U.S.
weakness and reinforced his inclination and willingness to use
military force to suppress Sudanese opposition in the South, Darfur
and elsewhere.
Although the conflict between Khartoum and Darfur has dominated the
news in recent years, the proximate cause for dissolving the country
now is the postponed but still simmering conflict between Mr. Bashir's
Islamicist central government and the Christian and animist South. For
decades, the South resisted Khartoum's efforts to impose its religious
law on the entire country. Then, in 2005, the George W. Bush
administration put this conflict on hold through the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA). While the CPA halted the ongoing genocide
against the South, it was only a truce, not a lasting peace. Critical
to gaining the South's agreement was the commitment to a referendum in
January 2011, when the South could vote whether to remain part of
Sudan or become independent.
That referendum is now the main focus. Neutral observers almost
unanimously think a free and fair referendum would produce an
overwhelming pro-independence vote. Those same observers think Mr.
Bashir's government will do almost anything, including resorting to
military force, to prevent losing the South and its huge oil and other
natural resources. (The North also has oil, but by many estimates, the
South accounts for 80 percent of Sudan's total reserves, all of which
would be lost by independence.) The petroleum reserves explain why the
North is still frustrating one major aspect of the 2005 CPA: the
delineation and demarcation of a border between the two regions in the
oil-rich Abeyi territory. While the border itself has been decided,
the North is preventing the line's physical demarcation, thus
preventing the South from benefiting by drilling for and producing the
oil underground. Mr. Bashir's regime has faced no penalties for
frustrating the demarcation process, or even much pressure from the
United States, thus signaling that Mr. Obama does not take seriously
Khartoum's violations of the CPA.
Wrenching disagreements within the Obama administration are
reinforcing the impression that our president is not willing to
confront the Khartoum government. Mr. Obama's "open hand" policy
toward rogue states, which has failed so notably with Iran and North
Korea, is similarly failing in Sudan. Mr. Obama's special Sudan envoy,
retired Air Force Gen. Scott Gration, has essentially cuddled up to
Mr. Bashir, hoping he can thereby persuade Khartoum not to use
military force. Mr. Obama's meetings with Southern Sudan leaders and
others at the United Nations General Assembly's opening have not
produced major breakthroughs.
Instead, Khartoum reads the Obama administration's weakness as a
license to hold South Sudan under its control, either by fixing the
referendum, Chicago-style, or using military force. In theory, the
Obama administration is confronting Khartoum with "carrots" and
"sticks," promising as carrots aid and legitimacy if Khartoum allows a
free and fair referendum and respects the results. The carrot list is
long and generous, but the list of sticks is hard to fund. Incredibly,
Gen. Gration revealed his idea of sticks when he said recently "We
have a policy that gives the North a pathway to better bilateral
relations [with Washington]. If they don't take it, that's already a
stick." In other words, if Khartoum doesn't do what Washington wants,
it won't get what it has happily lived without for decades. No wonder
Khartoum isn't listening.
Africa has long observed taboos against changing the national
boundaries given newly independent countries during decolonization.
Whether or not the boundaries were optimal, African leaders thought
that trying to rationalize them risked continentwide chaos.
Ironically, there have been few African border conflicts since
independence, but the number of internal conflicts has been high. Near
Sudan, Eritrea declared independence from Ethiopia, and their conflict
is still unresolved. Somalia's government has collapsed, and the
country has fragmented; radical Islamicists now operate freely, and
pirates attack ships on the high seas. Chad faces substantial ethnic
hostility, fanned by interference from Libya. Ethnic conflict in
Africa's Great Lakes region is well known and continuing.
The debate over Sudan's future, therefore, clearly could affect all of
Africa. Mr. Obama's policy of appeasing Khartoum is lighting the fuse
on the time bomb Mrs. Clinton fears. Only a few months remain until
the scheduled referendum, and the risks of a return to genocide in
Sudan are growing daily.
John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a
senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of
"Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations
and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----