Q&A With Andrew Natsios on Sudan
This week, Andrew Natsios answers questions submitted by readers about what the United States and others can do to bring peace and humanitarian relief to Sudan.
ANDREW NATSIOS is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and was U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan in 2006–7.
The ICC's latest move against the Sudanese president will harden Khartoum's stance, push Darfuri rebels to make unreasonable demands, and raise expectations in Sudan -- complicating efforts to secure peace and justice.
While the crisis in Darfur simmers, the larger problem of Sudan's survival as a state is becoming increasingly urgent. Old tensions between the Arabs of the Nile River valley, who have held power for a century, and marginalized groups on the country's periphery are turning into a national crisis. Engagement with Khartoum may be the only way to avert another civil war in Sudan, and even that may not be enough.
Brown N. Ugbaja: How is the international community engaging African governments in finding a political solution to the crisis in Darfur? And what is the moral responsibility of Africans to settle the dispute, seeing as how governments have not shown any clear disposition toward ending the crisis?
Nick R.: It is argued that a civil war is extremely difficult to end, if one believes a civil war does end. It is my opinion that everything the West has done has either resulted in no progress or has made the situation worse. Should the West, then, back off and let the African Union and more influential African countries negotiate a peace?
A: Practically speaking, no solution can be found to the Sudanese crisis between the North and the South and in Darfur without the active cooperation of Sudan's African and Arab neighbors. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda were actively involved in the negotiations over the North-South peace agreement. But alone I do not think they have sufficient leverage with the Sudanese government to get the peace process moving; they must be involved, but need the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway involved as well. The Sudanese are really most fearful of the U.S. government and want better relations with the United States, a circumstance that could be helpful if used in a constructive way in negotiations. Right now, the African Union-UN negotiator on Darfur is doing an excellent job, and the U.S. Government should support his work when he asks for it. On the North-South issues, the East African countries that helped negotiate the Comprehensive Peace Agreement with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway should take the lead. The question is not whether the United States is involved, but how it is involved -- not as a sledgehammer but as a constructive mediator.
Sean Li: What do you expect the Obama administration's new policy on Sudan and Darfur to be? Do you believe the end of the conflict is in sight?
David Jordan: What are the United States' key national interests with regard to the Sudan crisis?
Emad: Do you see any possibility for J. Scott Gration, the U.S. special envoy to Sudan, to succeed in bringing peace to Darfur and normalizing relations with Khartoum?
Related
The ICC's latest move against the Sudanese president will harden Khartoum's stance, push Darfuri rebels to make unreasonable demands, and raise expectations in Sudan -- complicating efforts to secure peace and justice.
The UN authorization of a no-fly zone in Libya gives teeth to the much-heralded “responsibility to protect." But the intervention poses legal and ethical dilemmas that will plague policymakers in the weeks and months ahead.
This article appears in the Foreign Affairs/CFR eBook, The New Arab Revolt.
Violence in Sudan's disputed region of Abyei threatens to unravel the fragile peace gained from January's secession vote in the south. Before full-scale war erupts, Washington must press Khartoum for restraint and reform -- and fast.
