Where Does Sudan Fit Into Gaza's Endgame?

On Saturday The New York Times reported one of the primary objectives of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip: Fajr-5 rockets capable of hitting Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These rockets are allegedly shipped into Gaza via a complex smuggling chain, imported to Sudan in pieces and transported through Egypt before being assembled in Gaza by Hamas and Iranian arms experts. Each is then assigned a "special operator" to man his rocket on the "day of judgment" at the orders of Hamas's political leadership.

Problematically for Hamas, its "tie-breaker" broke minutes after an Israeli air strike terminated its senior military strategist, Ahmed Jabari.

The pinpoint destruction of Hamas's Iranian-manufactured Fajr-5 rockets, which range to 50 miles, appears to be the greatest tactical blow suffered thus far by the group (Hamas also lost its internal UAV plant). According to the Times, "most" of an estimated 100 rockets were destroyed in the first bombing waves; anonymous Israeli officials place their figure at a modest 20, leaving the probable number somewhere in between. The means of destruction, though, count more than its end. Largely a creation of Jabari, each piece of Hamas's stockpile had been monitored and tagged over several years by IDF intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi.

"The innocent-looking launching sites, covered by soil, were supposed to go into action when the time came,” Al-Monitor reports. "However, the IDF was ahead of them: Just a few minutes following the targeting and killing of Jabari, the second wave of air strikes was already underway and within a quarter of an hour, virtually the entire lineup of Fajr-5 rockets was eliminated."

The upshot is that Hamas need more rockets and will almost certainly find a way to smuggle them in, taking into account Israel's sophisticated intelligence network. This development advances the question of what role, if any, Sudan's government plans to play in Gaza's renewed fighting.

Khartoum's likeliest immediate answer won't extend beyond political rancor. Shortly after Jabari's assassination, Sudanese President Omar Bashir called Israel the “Zionist enemy” that “will remain the enemy" of Sudan and Muslims. Sudan's Foreign Minister, Ali Karti, followed up his boss's rhetoric by calling for the Arab League's heads of state to hold an emergency summit. Raising more eyebrows, Hamas's Khalid Meshal popped up at Khartoum's Armed Forces Mosque after Friday Prayers, vowing retaliation for the Israeli strike on Yarmouk Ammunition Factory.

"You killed Jabari and you can go on and kill Mashaal and others," the defiant chairman told his audience, "but in the end it'll pave our way to Jerusalem… Assassinating our leaders will only make us more powerful."

Meshal boasted that the Sudanese people will "hear good news soon," and the emptiness of his promise is easily taken for granted. Yet the situation's terms do appear to be evolving and Israeli security observers believe that last month's attack on Yarmouk brought Sudan directly into the conflict. This preemptive raid and its warning shot now marks Israel's latest operation in Gaza, and is fortunately enjoying a large share of retrospective observation as a result. While Israel has targeted Sudanese interests throughout the last decade with minimal consequences, the accumulation of grievances and interconnectivity of Israel's relations with the Arab world cannot be underestimated either.

This is not to say that, in the event of an Israeli ground invasion, Sudan will assume any direct combat or support role for Hamas. What should be expected is renewed effort to outsmart the Israelis, improve the defenses of Hamas's armories and stock them with more advanced weaponry. Neither Iran nor Sudan's government will be deterred by Israeli military action, which also serves domestic interests, and Hamas isn't built to quit armed resistance. Rocket fire has yet to abate in the face of over 1,000 airstrikes. Both sides, in the end, are playing into each other's hands and maintaining a regional stalemate.

Gaza's current battle may burn out soon or rage for weeks, but one conclusion is already apparent: Hamas will re-up its weapons and replace Jalabi, leaving the region more hostile for all peoples. How the group refills its army is something to monitor until Gaza's next battle.

Sudanese Militants Watch Israeli Bombing From Mali

The Sudanese government has issued a defiant response to the combustable events of Wednesday morning.

Citing eyewitnesses and gathered evidence, Culture and Information Minister Ahmed Bilal Osman informed reporters that his government holds Israel responsible for a midnight explosion at the Yarmouk industrial complex. The resulting fire in the munitions factory, located south of Khartoum, sent exploding rounds into nearby neighborhoods and triggered panic amongst the locals. This collateral damage has attracted criticism over the factory's proximity to residential housing, adding to the government's urgent need for a scapegoat.

"They think that this factory supplies our army, and by attacking it, they are going to make it easier for the rebels to take over," Bilal told Al Jazeera. "Plus, they have accused us, [saying] that these arms would find their way to Hamas. These are allegations which are not correct."

He later clarified, "We are now certain that this flagrant attack was authorized by the same state of Israel. The main purpose is to frustrate our military capabilities and stop any development there and ultimately weaken our national sovereignty."

For now Khartoum has settled on a political offensive to mute its domestic concerns. Sudanese officials immediately turned to the Arab League for support and is keeping the bloc notified of their state's investigation. The accumulating evidence will then be submitted to the United Nations, where Ambassador Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman is pushing the Security Council to "condemn this attack because it is a blatant violation of the concepts of peace and security." Western capitals won't entertain the thought, of course, and many observers will point to the purchasers of Sudanese arms as the true roots of conflict. However Khartoum won't be daunted by its unpopular motions, as Israel has done no favor to its own popularity and must now confront a Sudanese response in the UN.

At the same time, this political action could form the basis of Khartoum's national argument for legitimate military action. Stopping any illegal arms shipments is unrealistic; targeting Israel seems unlikely as well, but jingoism is a standard tool for governments looking to cast their populations' eyes elsewhere. Multiple precedents don't hurt Khartoum's national and regional case either.

"We have to reply," Bilal told Al Jazeera. "This is too much. This is the fourth time they have done this. We have our right to attack the interests of Israel wherever - this is a legal target for us from now on... They killed our people. these lives are not cheap - and we know how to retaliate."

"Israel is a country of injustice that needs to be deterred," Vice President Ali Osman Tah later declared at the side of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. "This attack only strengthens our firmness."

Bilal claims that Khartoum isn't planning "direct attacks" on Israeli interests, as Iran is accused of carrying out, but added, "We reserve the right to react at a place and time we choose." The government could order a proxy attack through one of Gaza's extremist factions, except this process is below the level of an official response. The only possible deterrent is an air-strike or covert operation of similar proportion, conducted on a target that can be relatively justified to the international community. How exactly Khartoum decides to send its message remains to be seen.

What The Trench can't help noticing is the timing of Wednesday's bombing and last weekend's reports of a Sudanese infusion for northern Mali's Islamist network. Anywhere between dozens and 355 Sudanese recruits supposedly entered the country over the last five days, depending on the source of information, but all of them share a hatred for Israel and its Western allies. Khartoum doesn't need to arm Hamas or export its own jihadists for training - those seeking a holy war against the West and "infidel" African governments will find their own way to Mali. A distinct cause-and-effect influences the interaction between Sudanese-Israeli hostilities and Sudanese jihadism. Those Sudanese now training in Mali are monitoring Wednesday's incident with equal parts anger and determination, and more are likely to follow as Western and African capitals prepare their intervention.

The Obama administration isn't in the business censuring Israel's government, but a private message of "concern" would not be surprising in light of northern Mali's crisis.

al-Bashir Dares World Powers In Heglig

On the list of "Things Nobody Needs Right Now," another open war in the middle of Sudan ranks high on the international community's agenda. Western and Eastern officials alike have scrambled to avert full scale hostilities between Sudan and the freshly-declared South Sudan. In one hemisphere, U.S.officials in Washington are nervously watching years of political negotiations play out on Heglig's disputed battlefield, a scenario laced with al-Qaeda's growth in Africa. They're joined by their counterparts in Beijing, who require stability to expand China's economic infrastructure across the region and through Heglig's oil fields. Of course the inhabitants of both countries and their neighbors don't need another war either.

"This is not the time for war," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters last week. "This is a time for leadership, for engagement, for negotiation — in the name of humanity, and in the interests of the people of both countries and the region. The last thing the people of these two countries need is another war — a war that could claim countless lives, destroy hope and ruin the prospects of peace and stability and prosperity of all Sudanese people."

The problem is that Sudan and South Sudan's governments don't necessarily agree. After speaking to representatives from each side, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Princeton Lyman claimed, "virtually everyone I have talked to has said, 'Look, we don't want to go to all-out war with the other. We need to find a way." Lyman also admitted that "emotions are running very, very high," but his cautious statements conceal a major slight of hand in the word "all-out." Theoretically, the two governments do intend to avoid a war that would destroy each other's economy. Neither "wants" to go to war. They do, however, want what they believe is theirs and are willing to employ force to get it.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in particular believes that Heglig is his to develop and cash in on. al-Bashir's words and actions speak for themselves; Sudanese artillery and air power has formed the crux of his response to Southern movements in the area. During his send-off ceremony for a "popular defense" brigade, al-Bashir declared that South Sudan's "capture" of Heglig "revived the spirit of jihad and martyrdom among the Sudanese people" and threatened to "cut off the hand that harms it" by toppling Juba. al-Bashir has patiently awaited an opportunity to strike after January 2011's referendum, when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) left Heglig's status to be determined at a later date (the process was frozen after repeated clashes). The South's new movements in Heglig, which President Salva Kiir attributed to self-defense, finally offered the perfect scenario to "legally" retake the area.

al-Bashir may not seek a war now that he's done so, but he was looking for a battle with his new neighbor.

The international community must decide what to do based on these factors. Too little energy was applied to Heglig's negotiations over the last year and Western powers are suffering the consequences. President Barack Obama's calls to ceasefire and begin a dialogue have traveled straight through al-Bashir's ears, and the strongman appears convinced that America will shirk military action. Meanwhile China has nurtured both sides for its own benefit and ultimately encouraged al-Bashir to flex his muscles. Being the dominant international powers, Washington and Beijing must combine their own strength with the African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to extinguish Heglig's fires. They must decide how much to confront al-Bashir and how much to cooperate with him.

For its part, the South Sudanese government also believes that no crime has been committed since Heglig's status is undefined (British colonial borders are similarly invoked). Juba has reportedly offered to withdraw from Heglig if the African Union can guarantee a ceasefire, evict Sudanese forces from the area and complete the deployment of Ethiopian forces to Abyei region. These terms are unlikely to satisfy al-Bashir after his forces displaced the South's from Heglig, leaving the international community to navigate through a stalemate in the middle of Africa.

Step one to averting total war is not assuming that one or two parties don't seek a near-war outcome. Although neither government has issued a formal declaration of war, each side claims that the other has declared war on them. Both governments are prepared to apply force at a relatively high scale and this mindset could spin out of control. The Obama administration and other Western governments seem to have been lulled to sleep by al-Bashir's long-term plots.

Ferocious urgency is critical to politically resolving the crisis in Sudan's stomach.

AU Calls Out America’s Double-Standard

It’s too early to make any definitive judgements on the latest developments in Libya. Nevertheless, the revolutionaries appear to have conceded the African Union’s (AU) position on Muammar Gaddafi after reversing their public stance. While Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) has stood by its demand to remove Gaddafi from Libya, the organization is under Western and AU pressure to extract Gaddafi through “face-saving measures.” The AU’s weekend summit produced a favorable consensus on Gaddafi, denouncing the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) warrant and including him in Libya’s ceasefire negotiations.

Left with little choice except to soften his line, NTC chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil told reporters on Sunday that Gaddafi could remain in Libya under "international supervision” while negotiations began. For their part the revolutionaries seem to have listened to international advice. Now the West - America in particular - should listen up.

"We support the fight against impunity, we do not support impunity, we are not even against the Criminal Court," explained Jean Ping, AU Commission chairperson. "We are against the way justice is being rendered because... it looks as if this ICC is only interested in trying the Africans.”

Obviously this isn’t first complaint against Western imperialism and double-standards. Although we support the Libyan revolutionaries in their struggle against Gaddafi, the AU’s overall response is a legitimate warning against imbalanced and hypocritical international law. The law of the strong, meanwhile, continues to stand the test of time. Ping added, "It is not only in Africa that there are problems. So why no one else except the Africans are being tried and judged by this court?"

“Does this mean that in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza, in Chechnya, there is nothing happening there?”

Having accused Western governments of holding a double-standard to their own war machines, U.S. policymakers and the public will likely ignore the AU’s complaints. Gaddafi’s 40-year rule and the slaughter of his finale don’t compare to the abuses committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. Israel’s siege of Gaza will be justified. Drones are within the rule of international law - and maybe they are. Except they also demonstrate the political and moral recklessness of escalating military operations in fragile nations such as Yemen.

Similarly, Ali Abdullah Saleh faces no real threat from the international community. While Gaddafi runs from NATO warplanes, America and the EU have illegitimately granted Yemen’s battered president immunity for his entire family. The key motive: Washington is protecting Saleh from human rights abuses potentially committed with U.S. arms. Meanwhile his regime is being preserved at the cost of Yemen’s revolution.

AU countries see the difference between American’s response to Libya and Yemen, to Syria and Bahrain. They easily perceive the favoritism at Washington’s unilateral level and the Western community at large. They watch drones fly over Yemen’s revolutionaries as they protest U.S. interference, and monitor Saudi troops backing Bahraini security forces in their crackdown. The AU isn’t the only political actor believing a Western double-standard exists between its own behavior and developing states, whether political, military, economic or environmental.

Many developing countries and their peoples believe this to be true. So do a substantial number of Americans and Europeans.

Drones are now starting to resemble butterflies. Clearly their effects are being felt internationally, and this pattern is bound to intensify under Washington’s “new” counter-terrorism strategy. In reality this plan is nothing extraordinary and built on years of preparation; “new” means drones and enhanced intelligence gathering/sharing. Automated warfare is arriving on an expanding scale, at a time when the Obama administration needed a deceptively easy equation. Due to economic shortfalls and popular pressure to reign in foreign spending, the administration scaled back conventional ground forces while increasing unconventional forces: U.S. Special Forces and the CIA.

These forces are exponentially cheaper and pack an immediate delivery to hype at the public level. They satisfy the Democratic thirst to reign in military spending and the Republican desire for military escalation. The U.S. media suppresses public debate to a minimal level, and Americans are sacrificed in full knowledge that the average understanding of Yemen or Somalia runs low. The ultimate drawback of this seemingly invincible strategy is a high chance of failure within the conflicts themselves (particularly Yemen, which will be updated tomorrow). However the Obama administration’s response to the Arab Spring and its “post-Arab Spring” CT strategy will also collide within various interpretations of international law.

So far the Nobel Prize winner hasn’t run out of rhetoric to whitewash his hypocrisy, but his international audience continues to head for the exits.

Abyei Drifting Towards Worst Case Scenario

Despite the UN’s mobilization and mediation efforts through Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the situation in Abyei is looking increasingly dire on the ground and within the national context. At least 30,000 people are estimated to have fled the territory, with death tolls ranging from 68 to 100+. Both the North and South accuse each other of provoking another civil war.

Salva Kiir Mayardit, president of the nascent Southern Sudan, issued a reassuring statement that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), “We will not go back to war. It will not happen.” Unfortunately this is about the only good news.

On Monday we analyzed how the Northern Sudanese government patiently eyed its time to strike into Abyei. By tempting the SPLA into infiltrating Abyei and awaiting July 9th, when Southern Sudan is scheduled to declare its formal independence, the North encouraged an artificial pretext to “cleanse” the territory of an estimated 2,500 units. UN officials were in the process of negotiating a mutual pullout when a UN-escorted Northern force was ambushed by unidentified assailants. Both accuse each other of staging the attack.

Either way, UN ambassador Susan Rice conceded on Thursday that the North’s invasion of Abyei territory and the town itself is looking increasingly premeditated. Another mystery still unresolved is the use of proxy militias. Resolving the crisis, already an extreme task, now needs the help of a miracle.

“The situation in and around Abyei remains very, very volatile," said Elizabeth Byrs, spokesperson for the UN's humanitarian office (OCHA), citing reports from staff on the ground. "The Sudan armed forces (SAF) maintain their presence in the town and the presence of a large number of Misseriya militia has been reported.

According to the AP, “The nomadic and Arab Misseriya, historically allied to Khartoum, have rejected allegations that their militias are involved in the unrest.”

As we also observed from the North’s aggressive rhetoric, President Omar al-Bashir has no intention of leaving Abyei without a favorable political agreement. The territory failed to meet the CPA’s requirements and was withheld from the January 9th referendum; a special referendum was to be held sometime this year. The North wanted to interrupted both Abyei and the South’s political cycles, first destabilizing the environment and then demanding new negotiations on its terms.

Rice confirmed these fears during a conference call on her latest African trip: "There's real concern that the government of Sudan may have taken a decision to continue to occupy Abyei for its own political advantage for an indefinite period.”

Abyei’s situation is so tightly gridlocked that General Lazarus Sumbeiywo, chief mediator of the CPA, proposed an independent state on Tuesday. Although the idea was widely greeted as impractical, his admission reveals the depths of Abyei’s crisis. Perhaps it will untie itself before July 9th - an invaded Abyei may not even affect the South’s independence day.

Murphy’s Law shouldn’t be tempted though, especially in Sudan.

Showdown in Abyei Escalating Rapidly

Before the Arab Spring rearranged the Middle East and Africa’s geopolitical landscape, peacefully splitting Sudan in half was considered vital to regional stability. Although this reality remains unchanged, the Arab Spring has since intensified the pressure to develop a permanent solution to Sudan’s sprawling political conflict.

Now the international community finds itself in a full-blown race against time to July 9th, the day Southern Sudan has set to declare its formal independence. U.S. and E.U. states are expected to back its recognition - until further notice.

Following three days of clashes between the North’s People's Armed Forces and the South’s People's Liberation Army (SPLA), the Sudanese military claimed it had cleared Abyei of southern forces on May 21st. Thousands have fled the fighting in Sudan’s central hotspot after UN units came under attack by both sides. The two forces continue to battle in the territory’s southern confines, however the North remains in decisive control of Abyei.

Demilitarizing the territory remains a potent challenge in itself. Abyei contains oil reserves that the North needs after losing the oil-rich South, and is likely trying to acquire any territory that it can. Much of the Southern leadership hails from Abyei, and they too would like to see the territory remain free of Northern influence. Local tribal disputes based on resources and culture have intertwined themselves in the larger political system.

Abyei’s situation was considered too tense to establish borders before the January referendum, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) designated a special referendum to be held in 2011. While little could be done to avert the initial delay, this strategy allowed the conflict to fester under the UN’s watch. Amid sporadic clashes, the short-handed organization attempted to supervise a mutual pullout earlier this month. Yet the UN appears to have been played, at least partially, by both sides.

On May 11th a UN unit came under fire near Goli, roughly 15 miles from Abyei town. As the UN condemned the attack and called both sides back to the negotiating table, the North and South accused each other of violating the CPA. Although both sides have repeatedly violated the CPA, each saw the opportunity it had patiently waited for. The fresh crisis in Abyei isn’t a random product of local and national tensions, but rooted in premeditated schemes.

Resolving the crisis will be especially problematic if neither side truly wants to resolve it.

Expecting secession all along, the Northern government has eyed Abyei before it lost Southern Sudan in January. One member of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP), Didiry Mohammad Ahmed, accused the SPLA of seizing the territory "over the last six months... As we all know, since December last year, the SPLA has deployed 2,500 troops to Abyei and those troops were deployed in violation of the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement].”

Although he claimed “there’s no intention to start any war,” and that, "we have just had a very limited operation for a very limited military purpose which was accomplished 100 per cent,” Abyei town was later assaulted amid wider operations against the SPLA. Ahmed also foreshadowed remarks from Northern military officials.

"As soon as we are quite sure that there's no vacuum left behind that will enable the SPLA to once again deploy in Abyei, we'll withdraw."
That could be any time - or never.

Over the past 48 hours the North has dug into Abyei without any apparent intention of letting go. The argument goes as follows: the North wants to reach a solution to ensure stability, but must first “establish the conditions” for a new agreement. The North has played the U.S. hypocrisy card on SPLA forces, with Ahmed asking, "why on earth, right now, is the United States denouncing us?" Khartoum’s policy, in theory, seeks to eliminate all Southern military forces operating in Abyei under these pretexts. The North simply allowed the SPLA to operate in Abyei, stoking tensions and biding its time before calling the South out.

Defense Minister Abdel Rahim Mohamed Hussein told parliament in Khartoum, "The circumstances need, in our opinion, a new agreement to be signed. We are staying in Abyei until we get an order telling us otherwise, and we will not let go of one inch of land.”

He added, "Free citizens, your armed forces will hold all areas which the laws and agreements entrust to it.”

From the South’s point of view, the North has attempted to set it up from the beginning. Fearing the North’s military influence in Abyei, the SPLA believed it had no choice except to operate in the region. The North could not be trusted and the SPLA needed to stick its foot in the door. Realizing that it was walking in the North’s trap, Southern leadership is also prepared to play its own international cards, and has tied Abyei into the north’s wider strategy to provoke a conflict before July 9th. This could partially explain the SPLA’s own activity, which isn’t necessarily saintly.

"What Khartoum is trying to do now is not just occupy Abyei, they want us not to get to 9th of July," said Anne Itto, deputy secretary general of the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). "What they want is for us to react and drag the whole of Sudan to war, but we will not give them that joy of taking us back to war.”

Thus each side has baited each other into the volatile territory since pre-referendum.

UN, AU, and Western officials have scrambled to contain last week’s damage, condemning both sides (but mostly the North) for escalating their activity. The North’s potential removal from the U.S. terror list is sinking, while hardline ambassador Susan Rice claimed that the White House “will take the appropriate steps as the situation unfolds." However punitive measures on the North will only reinforce its resolve to control Abyei, and it remains to be seen what measures would create an immediate impact on the ground.

Not much time exists between now and July 9th. The White House also had enough trouble in Sudan without the Arab Spring consuming the bulk of its foreign attention. Sincerely addressing and resolving the roots of conflict in Abyei may not be possible within this time.

Worst of all, escalation between the North and South could jeopardize the CPA’s completion and throw Sudan into a new round of national strife. Leaving conventional forces in Abyei poses risks for either side, as the international community has an easier time regulating government forces. Though notorious, proxies are generally more difficult to observe and control. While both the North and South need troop density to maintain influence in the territory, and may leave their forces for the time being, unconventional forces could become the eventual troop of choice in Abyei.

This strategy would only thicken the fog of war.

“I don’t think that means that they’ll go to general warfare between the two, but any kind of warfare,” warned Princeton Lyman, America’s special envoy to Sudan, “and especially over in area – an issue as emotional and difficult as Abyei, is a very dangerous prospect.”

Libya’s Double-Standard Spreads to Côte d'Ivoire

We’ve devoted significant attention to the disparity between U.S. policy in Libya and troubled allies such as Yemen and Bahrain. Instead of reflecting and reforming, U.S. officials have started defending their policy outright to counter widespread perceptions of a double-standard. But hypocrisy is a universal language.

Were the Obama administration to treat Libya and Yemen’s revolutions with equality, it would reduce the complaints in both countries.

Now African states are denouncing the double standard between Libya and Côte d'Ivoire, where acting president Laurent Gbagbo has refused to cede power to Alassane Ouattara. Earlier this week Nigerian Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia accused the international community of neglecting abuses in the Côte d'Ivoire. Nigeria has worked diligently in the last few years to fulfill its political obligations as a regional hegemon, and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) took a strong stand on Côte d'Ivoire under the leadership of Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan.

Gbagbo began unleashing his military forces in February after relying heavily on paramilitary forces, and the four-month crisis has left at least 462 people dead with thousands more injured. Gbagbo’s government continues to deny using heavy weapons against civilians, and in turn accuses the UN and foreign media of spreading propaganda. These crumbling rulers must share authoritarian literature.

"I believe we can pass a resolution to request the United Nations to take a little more serious steps in the Cote d'Ivoire situation," Jonathan told a meeting attended by 12 of the 15 ECOWAS heads of state. "We must not make the mistake of underestimating the threat it poses to the peace and security of the entire sub-region."

However it’s unlikely that anyone is underestimating Gbagbo’s threat. Several holdouts such as Angola continue to side with him, but Western and African states largely agree that he must finally let go of power. They also appreciate the scale of Cote d'Ivoire’s endeavor. Although Gbagbo only controls a majority of the south, political authority and security must be implemented over a territory similar to Japan and Iraq, and larger than Britain or Italy. Lagoons and tropical forests along the coast increase the difficulty, and ECOWAS would have to secure roughly 21 million people compared to Libya’s seven million.

The delay in ECOWAS’s use of force, advocated under the cover of legitimization, cannot disguise the current reality that ECOWAS and the African Union (AU) lack the means to remove Gbagbo and secure Côte d'Ivoire. This is why they’ve also reached out the UN and Western states, hoping to increase sanctions and bolster the UN’s peacekeeping force in a slow crawl towards intervention. The AU had given Gbagbo a deadline of Thursday to step down.

"ECOWAS requests the U.N. Security Council to strengthen the mandate of the U.N. operation in Ivory Coast enabling the mission to use all necessary means to protect life and property and to facilitate the immediate transfer of power to Mr Alassane Ouattara," it said in Thursday’s communique.

Some reports mention something to the effect that ECOWAS is copying Libya’s international approval in Côte d'Ivoire. This may be true to a point, but Libya appears to be following the AU’s pattern in South Sudan, Côte d'Ivoire, and Somalia. The AU is visibly over-stretched and bombarded by crises, but 2011 does offer encouraging signs of Africa’s modernization. Only three months ago Mubarak, Gaddafi, and al-Bashir conceded South Sudan to other AU members, going against a standing policy of territorial unity. Now Mubarak is gone and South Sudan is on the road to independence.

The AU has also increased its tempo in Somalia with limited Western military support. And it realized it needed to make an example out of Côte d'Ivoire to uphold its stance in Sudan.

Good intentions aren’t enough to remove Gbagbo though, and ECOWAS may not be able to overcome its hesitations and military inadequacies. ECOWAS’s 6,000-man response unit doesn’t come close to fulfilling Côte d'Ivoire’s requirements, even alongside tens of thousands of UN peacekeepers. Gbagbo has given too much time to prepare, so much that he’s grown bolder in attacking civilians and immigrants from ECOWAS states.

"The civil war is almost there, warns AU chief Jean Ping. “If there is no possibility of a peaceful solution I'm afraid the use of force might intervene."

Gbagbo’s response to electoral defeat, his violation of ECOWAS policy, and his regional spill-over has already legitimized the use of force. Again, this force may be fundamentally lacking, and perhaps ECOWAS believes Gbagbo will become easier prey once international sanctions take their toll. But if ECOWAS truly believes in its mission and rejects international double-standards, it should regain the element of surprise and consider acting immediately. Another additional weeks or months may simply entrench Cote d'Ivoire’s stalemate.

Sun Tzu wouldn't fight a battle that he couldn’t win, but when is force necessary in Cote d'Ivoire if not now?

Sudan Votes into the Unknown

Southern Sudan’s polls have opened amid unbridled hope and uncertainty. Nearly all of the 3.9 million registered voters seem to have turned out, a sight that surely moved John Kerry and George Clooney. However, both Sudanese and celebrity realize the battle is only half over, and that it might just be beginning. Acuil Tito Madut, southern Sudan's inspector general of police, told Al Jazeera that the security situation in all of south Sudan was calm, "except for the skirmishes in Abyei yesterday.”

Clashes have been ongoing in the run-up to Sudan's numerous hot spots.

Perhaps the greatest advantage Southern Sudan now possesses is the massive turnout. In the words of Chan Reec, deputy head of the South Sudan Referendum Commission, "I can't express it. This is the size of turnout we have never witnessed before, even during the election.”

President Omar al-Bashir has little recourse from the north against the landslide secession, surrounded by the West and African Union. Except that won’t necessarily stop him from subverting Sunday’s referendum, whether in Abyei or Darfur. Warning of South Sudan’s non-viability, al-Bashir’s grudging acceptance of independence suggests a bumpy road for all Sudanese.

Wherever it takes them.

Sudan’s Worst Case Scenarios

President Barack Obama has spent the last few months encouraging leaders in Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, and the African Union as a whole to accept the results of Sudan’s upcoming referendum on statehood. National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told reporters that, “ongoing aggressive diplomatic effort with the parties in Sudan and with its neighbors reflecting our intense interest in having a successful referendum."

Hammer insisted that Sudan is one of Obama’s top foreign priorities, concluding, "We believe that an on-time referendum is the best means of preventing the resumption of a full-scale war between northern and southern Sudan.”

Unfortunately the referendum stands a good chance of descending into a broad spectrum of warfare, as the UN has predicted in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

Outlining the worst case scenarios following Sudan’s January 9th election, the UN estimates that 2.8 million people could be at risk of violence, displacement, or starvation if one or both sides reject the referendum’s outcome. The UN, “is in consultation with the southern government” based on the assessment that, “during the referendum period and its aftermath, a number of unprecedented risks are likely to emerge.”

While the White House hopes that everything goes smoothly - as if it ever does - the odds of each scenario must be analyzed and factored into a pre and post-election strategy.

The best news out of Sudan is an overall softening in regional tensions. Although the Obama administration has championed the virtues of democracy and progressing African politics, these talking points didn’t sell Sudanese and other African leaders. At first the AU resisted the thought of secession, as the bloc’s policy opposes breakaway territories out of fear of empowering Africa’s numerous liberation groups. But the White House impressed upon Sudan’s neighbors that, in the event of regional warfare, the spill-over will contaminate them all - and the “domino theory” argument has won out.

The UN’s document warns, "deterioration of the North-South relationship, as well as tensions within northern and southern Sudan could lead to large-scale outflow of people to neighboring countries."

It’s also believed that the north has finally given up on the south. Nafie Ali Nafie, an aide to President Omar al-Bashir, recently accepted the south’s independence after regretting that unity efforts failed. Perhaps the international walls have finally closed around Khartoum, or else the north and south realize they need each other too much. 75% of Sudan’s proven oil reserves lie in the south while its refineries and port operate in northern territory. With oil accounting for 45% of northern revenues and 98% of southern revenues, both sides would be choking themselves if they attacked each other.

The Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA), the south’s armed forces, even signed a framework agreement over oilfields and related infrastructure in the South. Of all the forces keeping Sudan in a tense equilibrium, this mutual dependence may be the most solid.

Oil, of course, is also a powder-keg awaiting detonation from a thousand sparks. Sudan embodies a state of Murphy’s Law - so many things can wrong that conflict must be expected. Hammer declares with confidence, "Over the past four months, the administration has redoubled our efforts to support referendum preparations and peace negotiations between the two parties."

While failing to hold the referendum on time would potentially unleash another civil war, the White House’s support isn’t without a double dose of irony. Support of the referendum’s outcome, to be specific. In the White House’s mind, as in nearly every Southerner, independence is “inevitable.” Other inevitabilities: voting irregularities, political persecution, night-raids, air-raids, and prolonged insurgency. Sadly both of Sudan’s choices risk intense conflict. Americans know at least a few things about the lesser of two evils.

According to Pagun Amum, south Sudan government's minister of peace, "I am sure 100 percent that the voting will go very peacefully unless someone in Khartoum decides to interrupt the process. It is not a very high probability, but of course it is there."

The probability is too high in Sudan.

Despite their public acceptance of a southern Sudan, northern officials appear to be lulling people to sleep. Officials from the north recently met with Libyan and Egyptian officials to discuss holding the election in a "climate of freedom, transparency and credibility.” Not very comforting coming after Cairo’s own suppressive parliamentary election. Massive vote-rigging is possible.

al-Bashir also issued the alarming statement that, if the south does succeed, Sharia law will be rigorously enforced: “we will change the constitution and at that time there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity." The half million southern Sudanese living in the north could become immediate targets for persecution.

On top of the north’s general resentment of southern secession and the continual hostilities with Sudan’s many armed factions, Abyei’s “special administrative status” remains a provocative unknown. Still undefined by its borders, the central region is considered key despite its oil reserves trending downward. But Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, the White House’s envoy and one of its most optimistic officials, recently conceded that Abyei isn’t in position to hold its referendum.

Since the parties involved have enough of a challenge defining Abyei’s borders, Gration believes a political resolution should split the territory to avoid conflict. This seems like a recipe for conflict, one of many detonators for both states. Amum believes that Khartoum should consider just handing over Abyei to the south, an even quicker path to war. The people of Abyei are worried that whatever side they shun will retaliate.

Once down the warpath Sudan’s territories are left with three worst case scenarios: insurgency, conventional warfare mixed with insurgency, and outright conventional warfare. The last possibility, though still feasible, is least likely for several reasons. In addition to a presumed U.S./EU/AU military response, Khartoum won’t resort directly to its military when it operates its own paramilitary in the Janjaweed, Popular Defense Force, and foreign mercenaries.

Any warfare will mix conventional air operations with unconventional ground operations, backed by regular units where necessary.

Yet this step down is only slight comfort to those who have witnessed the Janjaweed in action, many of which were absorbed into the Sudanese military. They could deploy independently. One can sense the return of Sudan’s armed groups like a desert that just drained a rainstorm, the battlefield gradually stirring to life again, virtually assuring an armed conflict of some type following the referendum. According to the UN report, both the northern and southern militaries and paramilitiaries are hastily stocking arms and reinforcing their positions along the border, limiting aid work.

The resulting competition over positioning has sparked dozens of clashes between the Sudanese military and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Darfur’s main insurgent group. JEM claims that government forces just attacked a position near Dar al Salaam, while also declaring to fight alongside the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) for the first time.

Clearly the referendum can touch off Darfur as well.

And the White House recently warned Khartoum to end its bombing raids on the south, not the kind of pre-election atmosphere Washington had in mind. Attacks on November 12, November 24, and December 6 are still being investigated by the Sudanese government, but Susan Rice isn’t buying any of it. The US ambassador to the UN (and the White House’s toughest critic of Khartoum) told reporters after a Security Council meeting on the referendum, "The United States calls on the government of Sudan to immediately halt aerial bombardments.”

In the event that one or both sides reject the electoral process and/or results, the World Food Program and other aid organizations have already begun “pre-propositioning the six core pipelines” (food, nutrition, non-food items and emergency shelter, emergency medical kits, seeds and tools, and water, sanitation and hygiene supplies). One million people in need will exhaust the West’s capabilities let alone 2.8 million. Sudan’s Afghan-like infrastructure also led the UN to predict, “as the conflict drags out, local level government structures will become inoperative and social service delivery and trade will be seriously disrupted.”

The strong possibility exists that Sudan’s insurgent groups will use the chaos to seize whatever territory they can grab under the banner of “self-determination.” Also possible: al-Qaeda slips in undercover or Sudanese-Muslim insurgents take refuge in the Sahel, Somalia, or Yemen.

Southern Sudan would make for a wonderful African tale if it didn't have so many bad endings to choose from. al-Bashir, the world’s most powerful war criminal, would be further isolated by a Southern Sudan, allowing for easier containment or removal. Except every indication points to conflict on some level. The White House waged its policy on a successful referendum, ignoring criticism from Save Darfur for going too soft on al-Bashir. The south will be free if it can just get to January 9th.

But the White House better be prepared for democracy’s Hyde side.

Sudan Bailout Bugs New York Times

Thanks to The New York Times for a good laugh. They must have read our analysis - yeah right.

We don’t necessary mean to pick on the NYT, its editorial on Sudan merely serves as a model of the general US media: shock, naivety, anger, denial, panic. The NYT is a but a piece of the “left” fooled by the Obama administration. For these people the pill must be bitter indeed, and it shows.

Or maybe the NYT is in on the coverup.

Notice Omar al-Bashir must stand trial for crimes against humanity, yet the NYT seems resigned that he’s going nowhere. Realistic, if nothing else. But then China, who deemed the election “orderly” is supposed to help? Pure idealism - Sudan is ultimately a square on America and China’s chessboard.

With no allusion to Obama’s “too big to fail” policy, he certainly comes off well for how big a let down the NYT implies:

“One year after the International Criminal Court accused Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, of war crimes for the genocidal rampage in Darfur, he was re-elected in a blatantly manipulated election.

Mr. Bashir has no legitimacy and he must stand trial for his crimes. But those facts must not divert the world’s attention from another potential crisis: the very real danger of renewed civil war between Arab Muslim northern Sudan and the south, which is largely Christian and animist. The last conflict — from 1983 to 2005 — left about two million people dead.

Under a United States-backed peace agreement, the semi-autonomous southern region will hold a referendum in January to decide its future. Voters are expected to choose independence. Leaders in both the north and the south pledged to respect the results. But there is so much oil involved that they can’t be depended on to keep their word — without strong encouragement from the United States and other major players.

Southern Sudan produces most of the country’s oil. Mr. Bashir and his cronies are unlikely to give that up easily. Meanwhile, leaders in the south are likely to resist giving up the oil-rich border area of Abyei if it votes separately to join the north. All sides need to understand that this isn’t a zero sum game. The oil now gets to market via a pipeline through the north to Port Sudan. Khartoum could continue to share the benefits with a long-term contract under which the south would pay royalties to use the pipeline. And the south needs the pipeline and stability to keep pumping that oil.

Washington, the African Union, the United Nations, the European Union and China, which has growing investments in Sudan, must press both sides to ensure a fair and free referendum and to honor the voters’ verdict. They must make it clear — firmly and often — that renewed violence is not the answer.

Last year, the Obama administration replaced a punishment-heavy approach toward Sudan with one that includes some incentives, although officials continue to debate the right mix. What is most needed is sustained attention, and pressure, in this critical period.

There are still a lot of unresolved issues that need to be settled now — including border demarcation, water rights and the status of citizens on both sides of the border. Those will prove even more volatile if left hanging until after the vote.

Washington is sending more diplomats to southern Sudan. They have a lot of work to do — and not a lot of time — to help the leaders there improve their ability to govern and promote the rule of law. Otherwise, the desperately impoverished region runs the risk of becoming a failed state the day it is born.”

Washington will need more than diplomats.

Bank of Sudan

Several weeks ago the sun peaked through the clouds when Osman Taha, Sudan's second vice-president, claimed the main opposition bloc, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), agreed to recognize the results of the April 11th election.



“We agreed to maintain an atmosphere of peace, as was the case during the election,” Taha said after talks with Salva Kiir, the SPLM leader.

Sudanese president Omar al-bashir would go on to “win” 68% of the vote. SPLM chief Yasser Arman, whose boycott touched off an opposition strike, banked 22% while Kiir, running as the south’s autonomous president, secured 93% of the southern vote.

Though Taha provoked a degree of skepticism from us, it makes sense for the SPLM to lie low all the way to the referendum in 2011. They’ve consolidated power in the south and are ready to make a serious run at secession. If incumbent Omar al-Bashir manipulates the outcome any further then they can cry foul, but too early in the revolutionary cycle would likely backfire.

"There is no link between the election and the referendum," insisted Arman despite all evidence to the contrary.

“I urge all of us, candidates, agents of the candidates, those who have lost, to use the respective institutions designed to address complaints,” Anne Itto, the SPLM’s deputy secretary- general, told reporters. “We need peace in order to get to the next stage.”

Silent opposition to the electoral process and confirmation that the SPLM’s main target is the 2011 referendum - Sudan’s Judgment Day.

When determining outcomes three present themselves: a fair election that grows “democracy” under al-Bashir, a fraudulent election that’s better than the chaos of no election, and the elements of another round of civil war. In the first corner sit Sudan’s government, the AU, and China, whose monitors determined the election "smooth and orderly."

Cross out the first possibility.

With the last possibility clearly not the West’s intention, it quickly becomes apparent that the West and most of Sudan’s parties were and still are hoping for a “Goldilocks” outcome. This alone shows how helpless the situation may actually be.

We can’t say it any better than Ahmed Elzobier in The Sudan Tribune:

“The United States, the CPA’s main sponsor, and the European Union are worried that their investment in peace in Sudan may be lost to renewed conflict or instability. The bailout is simple; support the SPLM/NCP to muddle through no matter how flawed or sham the elections may be. ‘This Is Africa (TIA) you know,’ some argue patronizingly, there is no ‘perfect election,’ it will be ‘a step forward given Sudan’s context.’ The ultimate aim is to achieve a ‘milestone,’ that it keeps the SPLM/NCP in power until 2011 is merely an unfortunate side issue. The US State Department assistant secretary Philip Crowley was asked in a press briefing last week whether the U.S. is going to be ready to sign off on the results no matter how flawed the actual process. He answered, ‘What’s the alternative?’”

Promoting international law doesn’t mix with excusing Sudan’s election for not meeting “international standards,” but in a display of geopolitical irony Sudan has become the US financial system - too big to fail. Leaving aside the EU, which was only slightly less congratulatory, America is caught in the trap as prime sponsor of Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in 2005 to “end” the civil war. congratulatory

Like the SPLM, Washington is just trying to hold the ship together until 2011.

A campaign this deep began back in 2005, as soon as the CPA was inked. Then president George Bush was already attracting criticism for inaction on Darfur following his infamous “never again” quote in Rwanda. The plot continued as then-Senator Barack Obama vowed to hold Sudan accountable to international law.

This allowed him to ride his Democratic base’s expectations all the way through the presidential election, though Save Darfur has wised up.

Gabriel Stauring of Stop Genocide Now, among others, explained after the election, “Marginalized people in Sudan are being left behind and unprotected, in this rush to meet a time-line. U.S. Sudan policy is, in effect, promoting abuses and impunity, when it does not go beyond statements of regret and move towards true consequences and pressures.”

The US campaign kicked into high gear during the weeks before the election. As southern political parties cried foul and al-Bashir threatened to expel international monitors, Washington played down the storm clouds during negotiations inside Sudanese politics and back home in briefing rooms.

The White House placed its faith in al-Bashir, an international war criminal, and promised to hold him accountable if he corrupted the election.

In the days after the election a predictable message started taking shape to counter Save Darfur, a message tested in the White House and State Department for months. Though Sudan’s elections didn’t meet “international standards,” it was “peaceful, meaningful, and a very important step.” The White House’s response took on a pattern familiar to Afghanistan.

Secretary Clinton and Gates were fond of reminding Americans back home that our democracy has flaws too.

The day after meeting with Sudan envoy General Scott Gration, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs released the White House’s official statement. To its credit it accurately reflects the US position: crumbs of “criticism” followed by champagne. In other words the Goldilocks outcome.

Forget the ballot stuffing and stealing, "disappearances," opposition parties threatening protests, and having their international travels monitored by the NCP, who fears their communications with the international media.

Or, for what it’s worth, a Sudan Tribune poll that asked 4382 respondents: Do you feel that opposition allegations of electoral fraud has any merits? Out of 4382 respondents 67.7% said yes, 23.3% said no, and 8.9% said maybe.

To be fair though Sudan appears to have avoided a worst case scenario in the near term. Western officials are right that the election could have gone even worse, for now. That could also be the flaw though - April’s election acting as a quick fix with potentially fatal aftereffects. What happens when 2011 does come?

Will America’s investment pay off or crash?

US officials portray an outward sense of confidence unjustified by the Sudan’s present state. In Washington’s mind splitting northern from southern Sudan is the endgame, which it readily admits to. In theory al-Bashir will weaken political and economically when he loses the south and possibly Abyei, home to most of Sudan’s oil reserves.

Crowley said many of those elected in the Sudanese poll, however flawed it may have been, would decide whether, "we have a credible referendum process that, quite honestly, is likely to yield the emergence of a new country."

"So while we understand that there were flaws and failures in terms of this electoral process, we will recognize that there is a lot of work to be done," he said. "The United States will continue to work with the government in the north, the government in the south, as we move forward with ... the vitally important referendum that’ll happen in January of next year."

This strategic objective only coincidentally coincides with the southern opposition.

Another strategy could be outright appeasement. The West’s policy according to Louise Roland-Gosselin of The Guardian: “rather than ruffling Bashir's feathers now, we should congratulate him for how far he has come, in the hope that this will make him more conciliatory when it comes to agreeing border demarcations or oil-sharing revenue with south Sudan.”

This sounds feasible too, though we favor the first strategy as real US policy. Either though chases a Goldilocks ending that appears destined to prolong the suffering of those in northern Sudan and especially Darfur. Washington refuses to address the very real possibility that al-Bashir won’t allow the south to secede.

We understand that, rather than pick a premature fight now, the SPLM is readying for war in 2011. They know al-Bashir won’t let them go so easily. America could be acting on the SPLM’s orders, hoping for a peaceful resolution in public and planning for a military contingency in secret.

But the same can be predicted from the north.

Though plenty of examples between Sudan’s campaign and election demonstrate that Washington realizes the dangerous bet it placed, none reveal the true gap like its reaction to al-Bashir’s “victory.” Announced last Monday, seven day have passed days without a statement from the White House and State Department.

Defending al-Bashir was a lot easier before the election than it will be afterward, especially if he doesn’t pay Obama back.

US Democracy Backtracking Around The World

US foreign policy is heading towards a critical mass. With the Obama administration losing control of Israel and watching error after error crop up in Afghanistan, a secondary group of suspects is threatening to overload the White House’s final years.

Their common denominator: backtracking democracies under America’s watch.

Sri Lanka

To President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his millions of supporters Sri Lanka is a shining beacon of democracy and economics, ready to forge a prosperous nation for all of its citizens. Seeing that Tamils were never treated like first class citizens, it’s difficult enough to believe a better future awaits them.

The latest poll results could be nails in the coffin.

Sri Lanka is winding up its parliamentary elections which saw 117 of 180 seats go to Rajapaksa’s United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) party, or 65%. 225 total seats are set to be filled, reducing UPFA’s total to 52%, but the majority of the rest, “will be picked from a national list on the basis of votes the parties receive countrywide.”

UPFA has more votes coming then. One official said the party expects it to pick up the seats necessary to cross the 66% threshold, opening the door for constitutional reform.

“I appealed to you to elect a strong parliament capable of crushing any challenge against the motherland,” Rajapaksa told his supporters. “You have presented the UPFA with its greatest ever victory in the three-decade history of the proportional representative system. I consider this as an endorsement of the ‘Mahinda Chintana’ policy.”

Tamils are presumably terrified of his policy.

Reports indicate that Thursday’ turnout was the lowest in Sri Lanka's post-independence history; just over half of Sri Lanka's 14 million registered voters cast ballots. Tamils were a significant reason why, with the vote in Jaffna, the north’s nerve center, estimated at 20%. A senior government politician attributed the low voter turn-out to the UNPers accepting defeat.

Rather than correct itself at this “defining moment,” that moment is long past. Tamil disenfranchisement already struck once in the presidential election and the parliamentary election just widened Sri Lanka’s political schism.

Unfortunately US inaction has forced Europe to apply economic pressure on Sri Lanka to hold an independent investigation into humans rights violations. The imprisoned, hungry-striking former general Sarath Fonseka raised no alarm in Washington.

Beijing is too deep in Colombo.

“The 2.5 million strong Tamil population cannot be wished away,” writes Sandeep Gopalan in The Huffington Post. “Unless the Sinhalese find a way to bring them back into the mainstream quickly, chances are that another cycle of separatist violence is only a few years away.”

We feel the same way as him except for his conclusion: “Sri Lanka must not miss this historic opportunity to establish a lasting peace after winning a just war against the LTTE.”

That is exactly what we fear has happened - the opportunity is gone. Our intention isn’t to denigrate Sri Lanka’s democracy and those who participate in it, but warn that their country is drifting back towards conflict, an insurgency different than the last but just as real.

Kyrgyzstan

A problematic aspect of US foreign policy is that Washington’s reaction to democracy isn’t universal. Two subgroups create a primary filter, whether elections and revolutions work for and against US interests. Silence, denial, or support is then chosen to implement those interests.

Silence wins out in Sri Lanka silence just as denial sounds from Kyrgyzstan. While the “conservative media” scolds Moscow’s hand, the “liberal media” is repackaging the same message with a democratic bow. Except questions abound whether this “democracy” the US media speaks of ever existed.

The latest propaganda from The New York Times on the Red revolution: “Kyrgyzstan needs to break the cycle. And the United States needs to help encourage the change.”

Because it did such a good job the first time. The NYT admits the White House, “was far too willing to overlook President Bakiyev’s brutal and corrupt ways - a fact the new leadership has bitterly criticized.”

So naturally, “The United States should be prepared to counter new efforts by Russia and China to persuade the new Kyrgyz leaders to evict the Americans. The Obama administration can prove its value as an ally by committing from the start to support democratic values and clean government. Kyrgyzstan’s new leaders say they are committed to both.”

The NYT concludes, “It’s certainly a pitch neither Moscow nor Beijing will make. It may help the Americans keep the base. It may even help Kyrgyzstan get a cleaner and more democratic government.”

The significance of this editorial isn’t its contradictions so much as the same contradiction are found in US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley’s press briefing.

“Let’s start with this point. The situation is ongoing. We will be governed by the facts. We will operate in accordance with U.S. law. I think one of the important factors by law is the question of a military coup. There’s no indication that the military or security services played any role or any meaningful role in what has happened in Kyrgyzstan. Our interest is in seeing a peaceful resolution and we will work with the government ministries and Kyrgyz officials to see the restoration of democratic rule as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Was that democratic rule really there before?

MR. CROWLEY: We want to help Kyrgyzstan continue on a path towards effective democracy."

Unsatisfied with his responses, Crowley is asked again:

"QUESTION: But wait, just on that – but, I mean, do you believe that Kyrgyzstan was on a path to democracy before this whole incident? I mean, if you had a restoration of the status quo, would that be a return to democracy?

MR. CROWLEY: We have expressed our concerns about Kyrgyzstan and corruption within its government. We want to see Kyrgyzstan continue to develop on a path to democracy.

QUESTION: But was it on that path, I guess, is my – was it on the path before, like, last week?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there – I mean, there was an election in Kyrgyzstan not so long ago. We stated our concerns at the time about the manner in which that election was conducted. At the same time, we recognize that there was a government in Kyrgyzstan and we have been dealing with that government. We are closely monitoring the situation. We are talking to all of the figures involved in this situation and we will continue to encourage them to resolve this in a peaceful way.”

This is really simple: the US government and media, embodied by The New York Times, are encouraging a democracy that America didn’t encourage. Yet they still believe Obama can out maneuver Russia and China.

Both Crowley and the NYT sweated to deny that democracy hasn’t gone well, ultimately cracking in the end, but they would probably deny that too. What they can’t deny is that Kyrgyzstan’s opposition just threw out America’s “democracy.” Why would they believe America could offer democracy now?


Their primary concern is Manas, then Kyrgyzstan’s people.

Kyrgyzstan has shades of Pakistan. We vividly remember the Bush administration pleading for “democracy” as Pervez Musharraf was finally toppled, just to keep its military operations up and running.

Sudan

Part of the explanation for Sri Lanka’s silence and Kyrgyzstan’s denial is that their geopolitical weight is relatively light compared to other hotspots. Kyrgyzstan would matter without Manas given Russia’s hand, but the air-base puts Bishkek on America's front pages.

Sudan inhabits the opposite end of the spectrum. A heavyweight capable of affecting swaths of Africa and linked to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, Sudan demands action. Full speed ahead with what should be a disastrous national election.

“The National Elections Commission has confirmed that polling will begin, beginning on Sunday, April 11,” Crowley said at his Friday press briefing. “The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, or SPLM, and the Umma National Party have announced that they have withdrawn some candidates from competition, but that others may continue. We view these elections as an important step in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended a 22-year war between North and South.”

We’re beginning to wonder if Crowley is in control of US foreign policy.

Other than America only President Omar al-Bashir and his supporters view Sunday’s election as an important step. With Sudan’s entire political opposition set to boycott the vote in the north, the only surer bet than chaos is Save Darfur’s venom headed the White House’s way.

Back in October Obama had warned, “Sudan is now poised to fall further into chaos if swift action is not taken. if swift action is not taken.” Six months later America is Bashir’s only international support, pushing an election the rest of the world is sounding the alarm on.

What a change.

“There are no choices in this election; the two parties are all going in one direction, toward power,” says Ahmed Sabiel, a political and risk analyst in Khartoum. “There is no clear strategy of how to keep the country together, or how to rule the country. There is no clear policy, and there is no clear objective. All the parties are just focusing on power.”

We’re expecting a mockery in Sudan. Former president Jimmy Carter arrived on Thursday, his first act being to “express regret” at the opposition’s decision to boycott. He failed to mention their conclusion that the election is rigged.

"We are glad that everything at this point is peaceful and many parties are participating, so we look forward to successful elections," Carter said. “We are hoping that it will be a fair and honest election, at least for the ones who are participating... There are about 16,000 candidates still involved in the election."

The Carter Center said last month that a short delay to the elections may be necessary because of logistical problems, “Bashir threatened last month to expel election observers after the Carter Centre called for the delay.”

And he still gets a thumbs up from Carter.

At the end of his briefing Crowley drops what is becoming an infamously hollow promise: “The United States will continue to raise concerns where we see them and... we will not hesitate to state when we think that these efforts fall short of international standards.”

This promise has failed in Afghanistan and Israel, and it’s already collapsed in Sudan.

"We expected a more constructive role from the international community, and Washington's backing of Al-Bashir came as something of an unpleasant surprise as far as we are concerned," conceded Farouk Abu Eissa, who oversees Sudan’s umbrella opposition. “The government is trying in vain to ‘save face.’”

But Eissa, SPLM presidential candidate Yasser Arman, and Umma Party leader Sadig Al-Mahdi, should have expected that America often puts expediency before democracy. And the result is usually instability.

White House Must Face Reality of Sudan

What planet has the White House been living on lately? Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq - add Sudan to the list of delusional behavior. Put it at the top even, in light of retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration’s current activity in the country.

The US envoy to Sudan told reporters three weeks ago in Nairobi, "There are going to be a lot of things that are keeping us from focusing on Darfur. That's why we have this little window where we really need to get the framework solidified. In the next two weeks I think we are going to see a real big focus on the election.”

Two weeks later Khartoum was hit by a cataclysm of oppositional boycotts, triggered by the withdrawal of Yasser Arman, the opposition candidate of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM).

Arman fought with and was a personal friend of the late SPLM leader John Garang, and was the primary challenger to President Omar al-Bashir. Today Gration found himself in Sudan vainly pushing a last-ditch effort on the SPLM to salvage the sinking presidential election.

"We certainly hope the parties can reach agreement so there will be maximum participation,” said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley. “What's important here is to put together credible, legitimate institutions of government that can govern all of Sudan.”

That is certainly important, but of immediate concern is that Sudan lacks credible, legitimate institutions to run the election.

Grassroots activists and supporters of both the North and South are said to be agitating under the prospect of a delayed or canceled election. It’s hard to blame them having built up the entire apparatus only to see it come crashing down. According to the government around 15 million people of an electorate of 19 million have registered to vote, nearly 80% of all eligible voters.

Sudan's political-military opposition, fearful of sparking an internal backlash, has correspondingly kept the door ajar for partial participation in select districts. But the truth has been exposed for good.

Khalil Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem), Sudan’s largest opposition bloc, told Al Jazeera, "These elections are based mainly on false senses, especially in Darfur. Masses of populations... will be excluded from the elections. I don't think the other parties will accept this, there will be chaos and war if he [al-Bashir] wins."

“Security conditions in Darfur does not allow the elections to be held in its scheduled time, especially in West Darfur, and a large area in North Darfur,” added Mariam Al Mahdi, a spokeswoman for the Umma party.

Regardless of how many Sudanese people want free and fair elections, as that includes all of them, no one seems to believe the elections will be free and fair. Not al-Bashir, who rattled international observers all month, not the political opposition, and definitely not outside observers.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who called for the ICC arrest warrant issued last year against al-Bashir, sounded the alarm a day after Bashir threatened to expel international election monitors for saying the vote might delayed due to logistical problems.

Moreno-Campo told a Brussels seminar, “It's like monitoring a Hitler election. It's a huge challenge."

Indeed hundreds of monitors are supposed to police over ten thousand polling stations, and with limited international security; the US-based Carter Center, the largest US monitoring team, is sending only 60 observers. An estimated 16,083 stations, 10,335 of them in the north and 5,748 in the south, were set to open on election day.

And the Carter Center admitted even before the current meltdown that the election was, "at risk on multiple fronts."

"The elections for president is made for one person, it is not made for a democratic process or for the Sudanese people, it was only made to save General Bashir from the ICC," Arman said on Thursday as he stepped down.

And yet, when asked the next day to clarify the US position on a delayed election, Crowley responded, "At the present time, we're working hard to try to resolve these issues. I think we are still aiming for the election to occur on April 11."

Why is that?

Because the Obama administration possesses no strategy except to force feed this election upon the Sudanese people. John Norris of Enough! observes a root of the problem that has plagued the White House from the beginning - it’s divided on what to do.

“As yesterday's dueling statements made obvious,” Norris writes of Gration and UN ambassador Susan Rice, “the administration needs to start singing from a common song-sheet and hold President Bashir accountable for facts on the ground as it said it would when the Sudan policy review was first rolled out.”

Then there’s the problem of timing. If Sudan fails to hold its presidential election on schedule the referendum on secession in 2011 becomes a guaranteed time bomb, set to explode right in the middle of Afghanistan, a potential war with Iran, and in Sudan’s backyard, a new crisis in Zimbabwe.

2011 is hinting at pandemonium, partially because of Sudan, meaning Washington is trying to limit how many fires it must fight. In a way it’s hard to lay blame since Sudan doesn’t really have a solution, but eyes cannot be shut to reality.

Were Sudan to hold a corrupt election on schedule America would have just as big a mess on its hands in 2011, like Afghanistan.

And how do you offer a solution to vote-rigging? Please don’t rig the vote? The only thing Bashir really cares about is not being invaded. To this degree he will do the minimum to keep Washington off out of his territory, dangling the hope of reform in front of Gration and the West in general.

Right now America is propping up a regime accused of international war crimes, a staggering policy. Instead the White House should be preparing with the Pentagon for the worst case scenario, as it’s more likely than the best.

First, after the White House gets on the same page, an international political framework must be constructed for the event a postponed presidential election and referendum on secession. The latter is especially critical as al-Bashir stands almost no chance of letting the South break away. America needs agreements in place with the EU, UN, and AU before 2011.

When the time comes, and it appears destined to, the international community will be compelled to act on the violence that results from Sudan’s political turbulence, or face the consequences of inaction. Special-Ops teams should be covertly pre-positioned in surrounding African nations as first line responders. The primary military options should already be chosen, tested, and ready, whether that entails a peacekeeping role, military strikes, or funding the insurgency against al-Bashir.

The White House won’t get an extended period of time to review, and can’t wait until hell breaks loose to decide.

Sudan is shaping up to become one of Obama’s biggest foreign policy challenges, right before his re-election bid begins. Strategy for 2011 must already be deep in planning for a failed election and renewed civil war if he wants to avoid that fate.

Ignoring what the entire country is screaming is not a realistic option.

African Roulette

The wind was finally at their backs. George Bush made an attempt, but his efforts never satisfied the passionate and demanding elements of Save Darfur. Barack Obama was supposed to be different, a black man with African heritage flanked by vocal Darfur activists.

Now Save Darfur is supposedly dead according to many of its lead advocates. In June, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof blogged its demise and lamented President Obama’s lack of effort. Randy Newcomb, CEO of Humanity United, reached the same conclusion. Save Darfur may have lost momentum, but President Obama’s support hasn’t necessarily waned. Distraction is a more plausible culprit.

Officials bristle at the notion that the Middle East, Iran, and North Korea have sucked the energy out of his African agenda.

“The Administration is committed to Africa,” Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, told reporters before Secretary Clinton’s recent trip to the region. “The Administration is capable of handling multiple foreign policy issues at one time.”

Reality doesn’t favor him though. Obama has visited Africa, Europe, Russia, Turkey, and Egypt, only stepped a toe into South America, and is still planning for Pakistan. Afghanistan and Iraq are waiting, so are China and India. The consuming economic/health care debate suggests that Obama is distracted not just from Africa but his entire foreign policy. He appointed a stable of envoys because he knew America’s domestic crossroads would devour him.

But non-action is a blessing in disguise for Darfur, where immediate action would’ve been a mistake with so many options to choose from. Chad, the DRC, and the Central African Republic are equal candidates for peacekeeping forces. Somalia needs an active duty force that will never come. Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Kenya are examples of how Africa can spawn a new catastrophe at any moment.

Save Darfur must be careful what it wishes for; “saving” is code for an increased UN peacekeeping force, and possibly NATO or US forces. Given the potential for error, deploying American troops to a failed African state is more roulette than strategy. Still, it stands to reason that President Obama, given his African blood and the lack of US military attention in the region, has one bullet for Africa. While humanitarian aid, economic sanctions, political pressure, and the AU are necessary to relieve suffering, they've fail to resolve the conflict.

That Obama must choose to save one people over another is the unfortunate reality of Africa. Fortunately for Save Darfur activists, Sudan makes the most sense for American military action. Chad and the Congo demand similar attention, but Sudan diverges in one critical aspect: the hourglass in its Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or Naivasha Agreement. An election to decide the union of North and South Sudan is to be held no later than March 2011.

No one predicts the Sudanese government would allow the South, home to the majority of Sudan’s untapped oil reserves, to break away. A government crackdown would exacerbate the political conflict in both Darfur and with the international community. President al-Bashir lashes out when he feels threatened; his reaction to the ICC’s arrest warrant will likely duplicate if the South secedes. A looming deadline, on top of the piling corpses, is why Save Darfur activists are so hungry for action.

They believe now is the only opportunity to stabilize the country before it tears apart and causes another refugee crisis or genocide. Though Obama was correct to delay his initial response, waiting too long tempts ruination.

As of May 31st, 2009, two UN peacekeeping missions - UNAMID and USMIS - have failed to bring lasting security through a combined 21,000 troops and 5,000 police. At four times the size of Afghanistan, Sudan has greater demands. Susan Rice, the UN ambassador and Obama’s leading Darfur hawk, argues the necessity of a larger UN force, which Sudan has rejected. President Obama, and in turn the American people, must accept that military operations are the only hope of "saving" Darfur, of forcing a political solution on Khartoum.

Establishing a more robust peacekeeping force would require the American Air Force at a minimum. Insertion, Rice told PBS in 2006, “would entail the United States, with backing from European partners and hopefully the political support of African governments, bombing Sudanese targets -- air fields, air assets, command and control installations -- that have been instrumental in the perpetration of the genocide.”

“The aim is to get Sudan to cry uncle."

Rice has since softened her position on military intervention, but the reality of Darfur hasn’t changed. More likely, her elevated position muzzled her real opinion. Military means, through increased UN peacekeeping and possibly an American arm, are the only option to make a significant difference in Sudan's attitude. Waiting for “a negotiated political settlement between the government of Sudan and all parties to the conflict,” according to envoy Scott Gration, is futile. Too many resources are being competed over. The Naivasha Agreement is a recipe for destruction, not peace.

President Obama is understandably hesitant about pulling the trigger; Sudan is a potential death trap and the odds of inspiring al-Qaeda-style militants are high. But the time has come to exorcise Somalia's demons or else America will never properly re-engage Africa’s conflict zones. Save Darfur should brace for military operations - they can’t object once Obama fires.

He’ll need support if he shoots himself.