Sudan's dilemma

In an effort to resolve the Darfur crisis, the African Union's peace council has adopted a number of proposals, including the creation of a hybrid court to try war criminals. However, analysts are not holding out much hope that this constitutes a real breakthrough given the past success record of such peace initiatives.

The latest attempt follows US President Barack Obama's recent landmark speech in which he gave the government in Khartoum a choice: incentives in return for peace, or tougher sanctions if the violence in the province of Darfur and in the southern part of Sudan continues.

"Obama's offer is not really surprising," Elke Grawert, a political scientist and Sudan expert with the university of Bremen, told Deutsche Welle. "There have always been these two lines, even under the Bush administration and Obama is now building his policy on that same basis."

The German expert, who has been visiting Sudan for over 20 years, added that "the US was strongly involved in the negotiations for the comprehensive peace agreement for southern Sudan, which was finally concluded in 2005. General Scott Gration, the US government's special envoy to Sudan, has now started to push for the full implementation of this peace agreement. And then of course there has been an outcry in the United States about the atrocities in Darfur since 2003."

Grass roots problems remain unsolved

According to UN estimates, more than 300,000 people have been killed in clashes between pro-government forces and rebels in Darfur over the past six years. A mixed UN African peacekeeping mission says the war is basically over, but hundreds of thousands in Darfur remain displaced.

"Obama's announcement was frustrating for those who have been fighting in the US for a very long time against what is happening in Darfur," Ulrich Delius, the Africa consultant with the German Society for Threatened Peoples, told Deutsche Welle. "They are frustrated, because they supported Obama during his election campaign. He told them he wanted more concrete engagement, he wanted to deal with Sudan in a different way than the Bush administration. But instead we are seeing a much more politically oriented approach."

In the meantime, grass-roots problems remain unsolved in Darfur, as Grawert explained: "The main problem is the land question. It includes the access to water and also to farm land. There was a traditional system, where people were getting access to land. But for quite some time now the government has been taking land away from small farmers for mechanised farming."

"The war lords in Darfur are another problem of course," Grawert added, "but as a result of unsolved basic problems. War lords can use conflicts over land and access to water to mobilise people. There are negotiations now to unify these so-called war lords."

"In my view most of them represent political resistance movements, which fight against the marginalisation of Darfur. It is a region, which has been marginalised similarly to southern Sudan for a very long time. They want rights of representation at the national level and more development," she added.

Roadmap required

It remains to be seen how President Omar al-Bashir reacts to the latest American proposal. Delius is sceptical: "Omar al-Bashir has been violating human rights in the last 20 years in a way that everybody who wants to be his partner should be aware of. He has made many deals, but hardly any of them have ever been implemented. That's the problem. The lesson from history regarding Sudan is that this government is not sticking to any deal."

Delius says the international community should consider the concept of a roadmap for Sudan: "If you want to start a dialogue with this regime, you need benchmarks. These benchmarks are completely lacking in the US proposal: there is no concrete time table, no list with the most important demands. We are not fighting for dialogues. We are fighting for concrete results. Protection of the civilian population, that's a very important issue, which is really lacking at the time. And we want to know the consequences in case the Sudanese are not sticking to this roadmap."

China wants oil and peace

For several reasons America's Sudan policy is a difficult balancing act. There are the charges from the International Criminal Court in the Hague against President Omar al-Bashir for human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. In these circumstances direct talks with al-Bashir are problematic. Simultaneously the US would like to get support from the Sudanese president in its fight against terror.

In the past, international economic sanctions against the regime in Khartoum have been boycotted by China. But arguably more than any other nation, China depends upon peace and stability in Sudan, said Delius: "The Chinese are interested in insuring that their economical and strategical interests in Sudan are maintained, especially that oil is delivered in time. The Chinese in a way are more concerned than the US, because if there is a new war in southern Sudan Chinese oil imports would be also threatened."

Grawert thinks the US should do more to include China in a multilateral approach toward Sudan: "The US could make a step toward China to include it. Only then could pressure really be effective. Otherwise the Sudanese government of course can always find a way against pressure from the USA by cooperating more closely with China, as China doesn't put political conditions on its cooperation."

Author: Patrick Vanhulle
Editor: Rob Mudge