[ad_1]
US President Donald Trump announced on Monday night an agreement with Sudan that many see as a step toward normalization with Israel.
“Good news,” the president of the United States tweeted, announcing that the poor and flood-affected African nation would pay $ 350 million to the world’s richest country. In exchange for the funds, the US will remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
After months of negotiations, the United States and Sudan agreed that Sudan will compensate the “victims and families of American terrorism,” as Trump put it. In return, the United States will lift the crippling sanctions that come with the state sponsor designation. For decades, Sudan has been paralyzed by US sanctions and many urged the government to give the US whatever it wants to lift them.
The United States had presented a very different treatment at the beginning of the negotiations. As part of the US diplomatic campaign to achieve Israeli normalization agreements, Sudan was a prime target. Still reeling from its split with South Sudan, with an economy in dire straits and recently hit by floods that affected large swaths of the country, the United States sought to offer normalization with Israel as a way out.
However, after lengthy negotiations, the announced agreement does not sound like the foreign policy “victory” that Donald Trump hoped for. His foreign policy push before the US presidential elections had been aimed at building up “peace accords” with Israel. However, after the UAE and Bahrain sided with the controversial idea, the dominoes did not fall as initially expected.
United States-Sudan Diplomacy
On August 25, Sudan’s Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok publicly declared that his government “had no mandate” to normalize ties with Israel in the midst of its transition process following the fall of Omar al-Bashir. After a peaceful popular uprising toppled Sudan’s long-running dictator, few in the new transitional government dared contemplate such a controversial move.
However, the US listing designation weighed heavily on Sudan’s economy. Lack of foreign exchange limits the country’s ability to buy essential items abroad, leading to long lines at gas stations or certain stores.
As inflation rose, so did the waters. Devastating floods struck Sudan in August, causing hundreds of thousands to lose their homes and livelihoods.
Sudan’s government declared a three-month state of emergency amid its catastrophic floods and the COVID-19-related health crisis. Political and economic difficulties further weakened Sudan’s position at the negotiating table, but a US-brokered normalization agreement has yet to be announced. Instead, the announced cash deal could be viewed as a compromise deal.
However, many around the world heralded the agreement as a sure sign of pending normalization. Israeli and US media reported that after Sudan pays “compensation,” the United States in turn would provide a large “aid package” likely to dwarf the $ 335 million that Sudan is being asked to pay. However, the “aid package” from the United States and Sudan would come with normalization as a price.
Sudan ‘sponsors terrorism’
The fact that Sudan is now tasked with paying the United States is controversial in itself. Sudan’s designation is based on Omar al-Bashir’s alleged support for Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. The United States held Sudan responsible for the Al-Qaeda bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the attack on USS Cole in 2000.
The attacks are seen by many experts as the first steps that led to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001. Those attacks involved 15 Saudis and were led by a member of a wealthy Saudi family, but Saudi Arabia escaped a similar designation on the US list of states that sponsor terrorism.
For Sudan, the punitive sanctions that accompanied the appointment meant decades of hardship, while al-Bashir’s regime caused untold suffering on the people of Sudan. Darfur saw bloody regional conflict as Sudan’s economic prospects continued to sink. In 2011, the country was divided in two and South Sudan declared its independence.
Twenty-seven years after his appointment, Sudan is a very different country. Its peaceful revolution has resulted in a transitional government in one country and its former leader is likely to soon be extradited to the International Criminal Court. The new Sudan has little to do with al-Bashir’s sins in the early 1990s, yet its removal from the infamous American list did not require mere empirical evidence.
Standardization ahead?
The United States did not assess whether Sudan was not now a sponsor of terrorism; instead, it offered to remove the designation as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. The negotiations had little to do with Sudanese support for terrorism and instead focused on normalizing ties with US ally Israel.
Sudan would be removed from the list if all they did was sign the deal with Israel. Compensation for the “victims” of Sudan’s actions under al-Bashir received little attention, it was Israel. However, Sudanese officials were wary of such a deal. The new cash deal with the US could easily be seen as a compromise after a deal with Israel remained elusive.
On Tuesday, the government of Sudan will transfer the funds to a US account, after which President Trump would recommend to Congress that Sudan’s designation be removed. After decades of financial hardship, this would resolve the complaints and end the problem.
Commentators from Israel and the United States appear to be convinced that this is not the case. They see the funds transferred to North America today as the first step in an inevitable US-sponsored standardization agreement between Sudan and Israel. Today’s transfer is presented as part of a “larger deal” described in great detail in the media.
‘Help’
Axios described the payment as a first step that would soon be followed by the announcement of a large aid package in the coming days. Trump would offer Sudan much-needed aid and “mobilize” foreign direct investment in Sudan. It is unclear from which sources this detailed prediction comes, as Sudanese sources have not mentioned any future deals.
The next few days should tell whether Sudan actually accepted a normalization agreement with Israel as part of the US agreement. The impoverished country ravaged by floods desperately needs foreign exchange and aid; the fact that you have to sign diplomatic concessions to obtain them is very problematic.
Withholding aid to Sudan is eerily similar to the situation in Lebanon, where “aid” is being withheld to force domestic politics into Western-approved domestic action. The problematic use of aid funds as a means of influencing countries in crisis is as immoral as a possible worrying trend. It will slow down the delivery of real aid and will likely make crises worse.
International “aid” is increasingly being used as a bargaining chip, a worrying fact. The next few days will tell whether this new approach to Western “aid” can be effective in influencing national decisions in Sudan. Doing so could signal the start of a new era of highly problematic cash shift proposals for crisis-stricken countries around the world.
Also read: Mali’s new leaders embrace Morocco’s continental agenda
[ad_2]
