Speaking out of both sides of your mouth

I don’t know if anyone has ever taken notice of the spectators at a professional ping-pong match. I don’t know if anyone even watches professional ping-pong for that matter. I am sure though that one can imagine the audience of such a spectacle to constantly be jerking their heads back and forth-That is kind of how I feel watching the Jekyll and Hyde performance that the White House Foreign Policy has recently undertaken with regards to Sudan.

Ok, let’s being the match during the Cold War. The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) failed in their attempt to overthrow Jaafar Mohammed Nimeri, who had come to power in a coup in 1969. This failed attempt caused Nimeri to disengage with the Soviets and open up ties with the Ford Administration. Washington was thrilled and the friendly relationship improved throughout the ‘70s. According to Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA, “In 1978, Nimeiri’s government supported the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel-the only Arab state to do so-and was compensated accordingly by the U.S (29).”

Of course it is important to note that the Sudanese people saw not a dime of this “compensation.” In 1983, Nimeiri decided to institute Sharia (Islamic) law; by this point, Reagan was president and not only did he give Nimeiri the thumbs up, but he also provided “crucial financial support.” In 1985, the Nimeiri regime was overthrown and US aid began to wane-though still providing “Sudan with more economic and military assistance than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa (36).”

In 1988, during the new George H. W. Bush Administration, a major famine broke out in Sudan. Khartoum was loathe to do anything to feed their people, but Washington took a surprisingly hard line in stating that it “would begin delivering food to civilians in the south whether the Sudanese government liked it or not (37).” It is interesting to note that US aid in the form of food actually dropped at this time. The authors point out that former Sec. Of State, Kissinger, had stated that “disaster relief is becoming increasingly a major instrument of our foreign policy…and Washington’s aid was closely tied to Khartoum’s willingness to pursue favored economic reforms (41).”

In 1989, Khartoum signed an oil agreement with Libya. This, coupled with the expected end of the Cold War really diminished the US-Sudanese ties and US aid really wilted at this time. Also in 1989, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir came to power in a coup. Bashir continued with Sharia law in a more authoritative manner. He also sought to establish very close relations with other Arab nations including Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. He also tried to get closer to Iran, through their shared ties to Islam (Iranians are not Arabic, but Persians). At this time, Washinton tried to bait Khartoum away from these Arab nations with offers of more aid or less aid depending on whether or not Khartoum changed their song and dance sort-to-speak.

The final break was when Khartoum supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Sudan was added to the U.S. list of State Sponsored Terrorism. In 1996, Sudan was included in its “Anti-terrorism Act, barring U.S. companies from operating in the country, and then placed Sudan under comprehensive sanctions in the fall of 1997 (47).”

Fast-track to post September 11, 2001: Sudan begins to increase its sharing of counter-terror intelligence with the U.S. Khartoum grants the U.S. permission to question detained Al-Qaida operatives and both come together to spy on Iraqi rebels. Such a convivial little relationship is established that “Sudanese government officials had reportedly been invited to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address, though they were later told not to attend due to the increasing attention being paid to the conflict in Darfur(49).”

Despite the U.S. blocking measures to hold Khartoum accountable for crimes perpetuated against their citizens, Washington has been almost totally alone in declaring the War Crimes in Darfur as literal “Genocide.” Thinking critically about this, one can easily explain this seemingly apparent contrast. The average citizen does not know about things Bush rejected, like the Sudanese Peace Act, which would have financially supported rebels in their efforts against Khartoum. The average citizen does however hear Bush’s voice through their television declaring “Not on my watch” with regards to the Genocide in Darfur. What is this but a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the American people?
**Quotes taken from Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA