Below is a rare article opposing further US intervention in the Sudan.
Clinton policies in Africa,  have been responsible for one of the
bloodiest periods ever on the African continent.

Congratulations to .....antiwar.com..... for paying attention to these
issues,  while The Left naps on without embarrassment.
...................................Tony Abdo...........

U.S. support of rebels hurts chances of peace

Foreign Affairs Editorial Opinion (Published)
Source: San Jose Mercury News
Published: 1/5/00 Author: ADAM CHOPPIN

THE Clinton administration has taken a page out of the Cold War foreign
policy handbook and is about to apply it to Sudan.
The temptation to apply the dictum that ``the enemy of my enemy is my
friend´´ is great in Sudan. Moreover, in comparison to many of the
previous recipients of U.S. aid under this doctrine (e.g. the Contras in
Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, UNITA in Angola), the enemies of
the regime in Khartoum are most deserving of external support. However,
the question is whether the Clinton administration wants to be part of
the problem or part of the solution.
The administration perceives the 10-year-old regime in Khartoum as among
the most heinous in the world. It accuses it of sponsoring terrorist
groups in at least a dozen countries, housing would-be assassins,
committing human-rights violations, denying food aid to starving people,
and acting with complicity toward an active slave trade within its
borders. Moreover, Khartoum has imposed strict Islamic laws over the
people in the non-Muslim south.
The complex factors that divide the people of Sudan (north and south)
have given rise to two prolonged wars during most of the second half of
this century. The first war (1955-1972) ended in a negotiated
settlement. The current phase of the civil war, which started in 1983,
is primarily between the radical Arab-Islamic northern government in
Khartoum and southern rebels (SPLA -- Sudan People's Liberation Army)
who are primarily Christian and animist Africans. Many had hoped the
United States could help bring the war to a less divisive end.
The State Department proposes to provide direct food aid to the SPLA
soldiers who, it should be noted, have been accused by the State
Department in the past of being guilty of some of the same human-rights
violations as the regime in Khartoum. According to John Pendergast, a
foreign policy adviser in the State Department, the provision is
intended to allow the rebels ``to stay in position or expand positions
in places where it is difficult to maintain a logistical line.´´ In
other words, to support their military positions on the battlefield.
Such intentions indicate hostility toward Khartoum and a warm embrace
for the rebels at a time when U.S. leverage is weak in the Arab world.
The Arab League has condemned the United States for its actions and
pledged open support for the Khartoum regime against ``any threat to its
sovereignty and territorial integrity.´´
The administration's open antipathy for the Khartoum government, not to
mention last year's missile strikes on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant,
have already made it difficult for Washington to help mediate a solution
to the civil war. The current move would destroy any ability for
American officials, including recently appointed special envoy to Sudan,
Harry Johnston, to take a lead role in the peace process.
Many humanitarian non-governmental organizations (non-profit, voluntary
citizens' groups) and food-aid groups have condemned the proposal on the
grounds that it would jeopardize their programs already operating on
shaky ground with Khartoum. These programs include a multibillion-dollar
effort by the United Nations to distribute food throughout war-torn
areas in the south.
However, even if one were to determine that these are the costs of
undermining the regime in Khartoum, the program is unlikely to make a
significant difference in the rebels' efficacy. Sudan is the largest
country in Africa, roughly the size of Europe. Distributing food to the
rebels who are dispersed across half of this large swath of land is a
logistical nightmare.
This limited effectiveness means the program will largely be symbolic in
nature, a symbolism that could cost millions of lives if neutral
humanitarian agencies are ejected from Sudan and if Khartoum chooses to
retaliate. This symbolism would also isolate the United States from key
allies as numerous heads of state across Europe and Africa are seeking a
rapprochement with Khartoum.
The State Department should be debating how to reopen an effective
dialogue with Khartoum on the war, and stepping up its activity to
revive and reinforce the IGAD (Inter-Governmental Authority on
Development) peace process sponsored by the seven East African states,
and led by Kenya. In October, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
pledged $300,000 to the IGAD peace process after her visit with Kenyan
officials in Nairobi, a sum that will surely be wasted if Khartoum cuts
off talks over this new policy.
If the administration is really concerned about the war, it should begin
to build a constituency, at home and abroad, so peacekeepers, election
officials and neutral monitors can be provided to ensure that the
settlement, after it is finalized, can be implemented effectively.
Supporting one side in the longest-running war in the world, and also
perhaps the most intransigent and complicated war, is a direct return to
Cold War thinking and military involvement that many hoped had died off
nearly 10 years ago. The policy would undermine U.S. diplomacy in the
conflict and with states seeking rapprochement with Khartoum. Moreover,
its effectiveness would be limited in the short run and the risk it
poses to the peace process and food-aid programs could cost millions of
lives.

1 Posted on 01/05/2000 11:29:49 PST by Antiwar Republican
[  Reply |  Private Reply | Top | Last ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or
its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[ Top |  Latest Posts |  Latest Articles |  Self Search |  Add Bookmark
|  Post |  Abuse |  Help! ]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC







http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38739bad7835.htm