Africa in the News: "Sudan: Obama Issues Tough Conditions On Resumption of Relations"

The East African (Nairobi): "Sudan: Obama Issues Tough Conditions On Resumption of Relations"

http://allafrica.com/stories/201010250110.html

At a recent press conference, Mr. Johnny Carson, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, laid out the Obama administration’s conditions to resume diplomatic relations with Sudan after the January referendum. The conditions included “the full implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the assurance that the referendum in the south will be held on January 9 as scheduled, the commitment to reach agreement on pending issues of CPA, and a comprehensive resolution for peace in Darfur.”

On the other hand, the Sudanese government has set forth conditions as well to “ensure a democratic and legitimate referendum,” including “the US to lift economic sanctions against Sudan, the US to remove Sudan from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism and for Washington to help influence the deferment of the ICC warrant of arrest against President al-Bashir.” Resuming diplomatic relations would have to take these conditions into account.

The administration’s current policy toward Sudan of “constructive engagement” has angered many who find the actions of the Sudanese regime unpardonable. Others applaud the efforts as a positive change in U.S. strategy by being “pro-active and help prevent an outbreak of war rather than react later.” The position of the U.S. Government on the issue has consistently been that the referendum must be held peacefully, transparently, democratically and on time. We may have to wait until January to determine if the shift to engagement with the Sudanese government results in the fulfillment of this appeal.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Do you believe ‘constructive engagement’ will be effective in ensuring a peaceful referendum in Sudan? What do you think would be the best course of action?

Do you believe Sudan’s conditions will be met if the referendum goes on peacefully, democratically and on time? Do you believe they should be? What if offering them meant preventing a war?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Video of the October 22, 2010 brief on Sudan from the Foreign Press Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjRb-0Yz8Ys&feature=channel

An article from the State Department on Sudan with a section on U.S.-Sudanese relations: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5424.htm#relations

An article on US Diplomacy in Sudan from the Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/23063/intensifying_diplomacy_on_sudan.html

An article on U.S.-Sudan diplomacy with regard to the upcoming referendum: http://allafrica.com/stories/201009150218.html

Africa in the News: "Could a Split Benefit Sudan?"

The Guardian: "Could a Split Benefit Sudan?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/02/south-sudan-split-benefit

In 2005, a 30 year civil war between forces in the Northern and Southern regions of Sudan concluded with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). This agreement also set forth preliminary terms for a future referendum which would take place in January 2011 and would allow South Sudan the opportunity to become independent if approved. As the date for this referendum has drawn closer, preparations have been made to carry out the vote fairly, transparently and peacefully. Anticipation has risen as it has becomes clearer that the Sudan will likely split into two independent nations. While there are still many contemptuous issues which have yet to be resolved the leadership of both regions have made clear their commitment to hold the referendum on time.

The majority of coverage in the anticipation of the referendum has been full of fear and uncertainty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the countdown to the referendum “a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence.” Southern Sudan’s President Salvia Kiir has requested and been granted UN peacekeeping troops to be deployed across ‘hotspots’ on the border. There has yet to be an agreement on who exactly will be eligible to vote, where the north/south border will be drawn, and how two independent countries would share oil revenues, access to the Nile or other resources. All of these issues have the possibility of sparking economic turmoil or war.

However, a recent opinion article from the UK’s “The Guardian,” has highlighted the potential benefits from a north/south split in Sudan. While attention must be paid to the concerns of holding the referendum and its aftermath, perhaps increased concentration on the potential benefits for both the North and the South is productive as well. The author of the article, Nesrine Malik explains that “we must not conflate the northern government with the people of the north, some of whom, in conversations with me over the past few days, have expressed cautious optimism regarding the separation.”

Indeed there may be benefits for both the people of the northern region which have not been given enough recognition in the midst of so many negative reports. First, the region has long seen the oil rich region to the south as a major source of revenue and invested quite a bit into it. If the north is on its own, it will be forced to turn “its gaze inward” and “compelled to invest in itself and its people, to develop its infrastructure and resurrect a decimated civil society.” Although the northern government may be reluctant to lose a major source of revenue, the people of the north may see an influx of investment in their own communities. This is not to mention the cost savings of peace.

Politically, there may also be a benefit to a split for the people of both sides of the border. Sudan without the South could warrant a significant change in political culture. Perhaps the government may “start to think more carefully about the marginalization of regions such as Darfur and the disgruntled eastern provinces,” for “fear that another rebellion may be on the cards, and to marshal as much revenue as possible from what is left of the country.”

Although there are many legitimate concerns, it is possible that “secession may be the beginning of a real and lasting change.” Of course many challenges lay ahead of both the northern and southern regions of Sudan. The challenges of carrying out the referendum must still be met and efforts to ensure that the procedure set forth in the CPA must be carried out. However, after the referendum, if the South does indeed become independent, both sides will have to confront reality without the other. Perhaps it may be more beneficial to hope for the positive opportunities change can bring than dwell on the negative.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Do you think the interests of the people and the interests of the government are the same in Northern Sudan? In the South? Where might their interests differ? How could you determine this?

Is there anything that the international community could/should do to accentuate the potential positives of a split for the north?

Can you think of any other potentially positive consequences of a split for both the northern and southern regions?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

A video with background information and a panel discussing the referendum in Sudan from Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/09/20109217504924681.html

A video from CNN on the Referendum: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/09/24/un.obama.sudan/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)

AllAfrica.com’s Topical Page on Sudan: http://allafrica.com/sudan/

Audio from the United States Institute of Peace’s Conference “Sudan’s 2011 Referendum and Beyond”: http://www.usip.org/newsroom/multimedia/audio/audio-sudans-2011-referendum-and-beyond

The Enough Project’s Sudan Page: http://www.enoughproject.org/conflict_areas/darfur_southern_sudan

The Ninetieth Iteration of the Ambassador Andrew Young Lecture Series - "MCC's Commitment on Africa" featuring Mr. Daniel Yohannes

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at the Embassy of Ghana, The Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa held the 19^th iteration of the Ambassador Andrew Young lecture series entitled “MCC’s Commitment to Africa,” featuring Daniel W. Yohannes, Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The speakers emphasized the importance to continue the effort to educate the American public, policy makers, and those in the Africanist community on Africa and U.S. policy towards the continent. Mr. Yohannes focused on President Obama’s policy plan towards Africa and the MCC’s place in fostering peace, security, good governance and development on the continent.

Edith Hazel, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Ghana and host of the event, provided welcoming remarks while Bernadette Paolo, President and CEO of The Africa Society, served as the Mistress of Ceremony. Congressman Donald M. Payne, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, provided remarks on the Africa Society, commenting on the change he has personally seen in the American public and policy makers on their perception of Africa through increased education provided by the organization. Noah Samara, CEO of WorldSpace and Africa Society board member, had the honor of introducing his fellow brother of Ethiopia, Daniel Yohannes.

Mr. Yohannes began his remarks by commenting on the MCC and the Africa Society’s shared goal: “our commitment to helping Africans help themselves replace poverty with prosperity.” He went on to remind the audience of President’s Obama’s message, that Africa’s prosperity is not isolated, but rather tied to the prosperity of the United States. While the United States certainly plays a supporting role in Africa’s development, it is African governments themselves which must be responsible, accountable and “willing to do everything possible to create sustainable environments for growth that will open up opportunities for investment and trade.” Mr. Yohannes explained how the MCC’s performance based grants, which are awarded to countries with firm political, economic, and social policies aims to foster this type of culture in development and investment on the continent. Mr. Yohannes ended with a reminder that “the purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it’s no longer needed,” where African trade, commerce and innovation are independent.

The night ended with a rousing question and answer session, which brought to light many of the tough questions the MCC must face. After the lecture was drawn to a close, Mr. Yohannes was given enormous thanks and the audience lingered to enjoy a few more jovial moments among fellow friends of Africa.

Africa in the News: "Wal-Mart sets sights on Africa in £2.9bn bid for Massmart"

The Guardian: "Wal-Mart sets sights on Africa in £2.9bn bid for Massmart"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/27/wal-mart-bid-massmart-south-africa

The world’s largest corporation, Wal-Mart, is in negotiations to move into Sub-Saharan Africa through a £2.9bn takeover of Massmart, a South African based chain of superstores. Massmart currently consists of 290 stores in 13 Africa countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zimbabwe under a variety of brand names. This deal is Wal-Mart’s first attempt to gain access to African markets which it deemed as a “’compelling’ growth opportunity.” Many within the region see Wal-Mart’s desire for business as a vote of confidence in their economies.

However, the takeover may prove complicated for Wal-Mart, particularly in the case of Zimbabwe, as the U.S. is still enforcing targeted sanctions due to its disapproval of Robert Mugabe’s regime which has been accused of “ongoing human rights violations, land seizures and intimidation of political participants.” Things could also get complicated for the company within South Africa in the midst of ongoing strikes across industries for wage increases. Wal-Mart’s reputation ‘for being anti-union and for a ruthless approach in keeping down wages,” leads Michael Bride, deputy organizing director for global strategies at America's UFCW union, to speculate that “The company may very well adopt a policy of racing to the bottom in terms of wages and salaries and then denying workers a voice." Opposition to the takeover has already been voiced by the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A Forbes article on reactions of South Africans over the proposed take over: http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/28/walmart-takeover-labor-union-opposition-equities.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

A short South African News Report on the Issue: http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/ns_me/2010-09-29/500195547382.html

Overview of U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/zimbabwe/zimb.pdf

An article from Africa Recovery on “Africa's untapped investment potential”: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/132inves.htm

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Do you believe this type of investment in African economies is positive? What might be some of the negative/positive side effects?

2. Do you think Wal-Mart’s desire to move into African markets is a good indicator of economic growth on the continent?

3. What may be some cultural implications of a large U.S. corporation entering Sub-Saharan African markets?