For most Americans, the U.S. government’s chaotic approach to Sudan became clear only last month when fighting erupted, causing thousands of U.S. citizens to scramble for safety. But for close Sudan-watchers, the disordered evacuation effort is only the latest incident in years of failed policy.
Since April 15, when Sudan’s two most powerful generals started attacking each other, the country has descended into widespread violence, leading Sudanese and foreign nationals alike to flee the capital, Khartoum. On Monday, the United Nations warned that the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is on the verge of becoming a “full-blown catastrophe” and, if the fighting continues, 800,000 potential refugees could cause a regional crisis.
The U.S. government seems to have been caught off-guard. On April 23, military helicopters evacuated the embassy in Khartoum, but the Biden administration said security conditions prevented the rescue of private American citizens, leaving many to seek help from other nations. While several other countries evacuated their people, Americans on the ground lamented their government’s lack of support as they made life-or-death decisions.
After days of criticism, on April 29, the U.S. Defense Department deployed armed drones to protect a convoy of Americans making the harrowing trip from Khartoum to Port Sudan. Two more such convoys have since arrived in Port Sudan. In Washington, lawmakers in both parties had been calling on the administration to prepare for such a scenario.
“The violence and ongoing crisis in Sudan are no surprise to anyone paying attention,” James Risch (Idaho), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told me. “Why the administration, which has been working on this issue from day one, did not see the troop build-up in Khartoum or other warning signs as sufficient reason to act speaks to the more significant failures of its policy.”
As national security adviser Jake Sullivan pointed out, Sudan is not Afghanistan, where the United States had special obligations. Nevertheless, it’s hard not to notice that in both circumstances, the administration had no good plan to get Americans out, and then struggled to come up with one on the fly.
The larger U.S. policy failure in Sudan dates back at least to 2019. That’s when soldiers loyal to Sudanese Army Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and those loyal to Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the head of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), overthrew Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir following popular protests. The two forces are now fighting each other.
After Bashir was deposed, U.S. congressional leaders in both parties began calling for more diplomatic attention and resources to support Sudan’s transition to democracy. But the Trump and Biden administrations did little to either advance that reform or convince the two generals that there would be consequences if they broke their promises.
In October 2021, the generals stamped out the civilian leadership for good. But President Biden failed to impose sanctions on them for their power grab, human rights violations and increasing state corruption. As the infighting intensified, the United States ceded international diplomatic leadership to other countries and failed to properly support civil society groups opposed to military rule.
“Sudan is a prime example of what happens when the United States does not mean what it says and seeks short-term solutions to long-term problems,” Risch said.
To be sure, in the past two weeks, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been active on Sudan, getting involved in the evacuation efforts and working to establish a meaningful cease-fire. But this stands in contrast to the lack of high-level attention paid to the country over the past two years.
John Godfrey, the American ambassador to Sudan, assumed office only last September. The State Department’s special envoy for the Horn of Africa, Ambassador Mike Hammer, is the third person to hold that job in two years. Officials say that bureaucratic turf struggles within the State Department’s Africa bureau have limited his authority on the Sudan problem.
Many experts say that democratic transition in Sudan was a long shot and imposing sanctions on the generals would not have been effective. But they, too, say the administration has mishandled the policy. If the Biden team didn’t want to bet on actual reform, they argue, it should have at least played a larger role in shaping events.
“We kind of pretended there was a transition when there wasn’t one,” said J. Peter Pham, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former U.S. special envoy for the Sahel region. “We should have been engaging both parties with a plan to move things along rather than wagging fingers at them.”
Now, the United States has no diplomatic presence on the ground. To increase U.S. engagement in Sudan at this point would be difficult. But the United States should not simply stand aside and watch Africa’s third-largest country further descend into crisis.
Biden talks a big game about democracy, but his team has often taken a hands-off approach to countries struggling with democratic transitions. The president’s objective in the Middle East and North Africa has been described as “no more failed states.” In Sudan, that policy has failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment